Is there a difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama when it comes to Syria policy? Not really, says Scott Conroy on RCP.
Romney’s own criticisms of Obama’s handing of the situation have echoed his previous condemnations of the president’s decisions regarding almost every other international hotspot, perhaps most prominently the 2011 rebellion in Libya that led to Moammar Gaddafi’s demise. Although his handling of international events has been one area in which the president has consistently drawn high marks in polls of voters, Romney’s comments on Syria obviously reflect a contrary view.
This post is from yesterday’s Monkey Cage. And don’t miss Mona Yacoubian’s map:
The Obama administration should focus on insulating Syria’s neighbors from the conflict’s spillover. In particular, the United States should work with governments in the region to mitigate the threat of spreading violence, especially in Lebanon and Iraq given their inherent sectarian tensions. Syria’s chemical weapons—among the region’s largest stockpiles—constitute another significant threat. The Syrian government has said it would not use the weapons to put down the uprising, but they could be deployed against “external aggression.” Beyond sending clear signals to the Assad regime on the international community’s “red lines,” the United States must ensure that it has adequate contingency plans in place to secure Syria’s scattered chemical weapons sites should the country descend into all-out chaos.
Jerusalem Post: Romney slams Obama for ‘lecturing Israel’s leaders’
New York Times: The Candidates Talk Foreign Policy
Washington Post: Marcus: Israel confronts a flood of African refugees
Wall Street Journal: Ottolenghi: What Iran Sanctions Can and Can’t Do