(MintPress) – Last week, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney stood stoically before a group of reporters and said the attack on the United States Embassy that resulted in the death of Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens would not have happened under his watch. The attacks to the embassy were reported as a response to an online anti-Muslim film produced in America, and Romney went on the offensive to portray those demonstrating in the Middle East as violent and anti-American. The response from Romney echoes similar rhetoric used by the administration of former President George W. Bush, and rightfully so, as 17 of the 24 foreign policy advisers to Romney worked within the Bush administration.
Romney’s sentiments are a stark contrast to President Barack Obama’s apologetic approach, which have included sympathy for those who were offended by the recent anti-Muslim video and also past actions by the United States in the Middle East that include long-standing occupations and political manipulation. Obama has been criticized for writing a letter of apology to Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai for the accidental burning of Korans by U.S. troops and for the incident that saw troops urinate on the dead bodies of Taliban soldiers.
After the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya, the embassy in Cairo apologized for the religious insensitivity of the video.
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions,” the embassy’s statement said. “ … Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
A tale of two policies
Obama echoed similar sentiments, but noted that he would seek punishment for those accountable of the attacks. Obama has also been sympathetic to the region, which has seen political turmoil since the overthrow of long-standing, oppressive leaders such as Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh. The U.S. also has a history in the Middle East of propping up the very same dictators that it helps to overthrow years later, confusing the relationship between the U.S. government and the people it says it sympathizes with.
“I don’t think that we would consider them an ally, but we don’t consider them an enemy,” Obama said of Egypt. “They’re a new government that is trying to find its way.”
That neutral stance that Obama has adopted has infuriated the Romney campaign and hard-lined Republicans, who argue that Obama’s sympathy is misdirected and that those in the Middle East are the true threat to America. Romney used the embassy attack as political fodder to go after Obama’s foreign policy, saying that he refuses to threaten punishment even though Obama said those responsible for the attacks would be dealt with.
“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” the Romney campaign wrote. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
Ronald Feinman, a professor of history and political science at Florida Atlantic University, said Romney’s attitude toward foreign policy would likely create widespread conflicts across the Middle East if he were to win the presidency. He noted that Obama has dealt with the region on a case-by-case approach, while Romney and many of those on the right see Islam as the main issue and threat to America.
That hawkish stance classifies the more than 350 million people who occupy areas in the Middle East to a dangerous foreign policy stance that parallels the same attitudes of the Bush administration. It also highlights the “no apologies” stance of Romney, who has skewered Obama for apologizing for America’s actions since the Republican presidential nominee debate season.
“Mitt Romney has not only now proved his ignorance and arrogance on this matter, but also on other areas of foreign policy,” Feinman wrote in a post. “If somehow he was elected, the neoconservatives would take over, and we would be engaged in warfare against the Islamic world – Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt – and continuation of the war in Afghanistan, and maybe going back into Iraq.”
Former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said that if Romney’s response to the embassy attack is a microcosm of his foreign policy, there could be a drastic increase in U.S. involved conflicts overseas should Romney win the White House.
“This was an opportunity to instruct, to elucidate, to educate, to talk about how you put the pieces back together again in North Africa and the Middle East,” Huntsman said. “Not to condemn, not to criticize, not to turn it into a political event, but to explain to the American people what we’re going to do during a time of need, during a time of crisis, during a time of uncertainty.”
A war on what?
In 2010, nearly a decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 53 percent of Americans acknowledged harboring a prejudice against Islam, and 42 percent had the same feelings for Muslims, according to a Gallup poll. Despite their self-identified prejudices, 63 percent of those respondents admitted to having little to no knowledge about Islam as a whole.
According to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, those continued biases have fueled America’s acceptance to the “War on Terror,” which is really a “War on Islam” the organization says. Since 9/11, CAIR has highlighted policies that it says discriminate against Muslims but are sold to the public as measures of national security. The group also says anti-Muslim rhetoric from public figures such as former Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum – who called for the need to “evangelize” and “eradicate” parts of the Middle East – tell the public what they already believe, giving them a confirmation bias.
Nihad Awad, Executive Director of CAIR National, said security measures that profile Muslims are unfounded and would be against the law for nearly every other demographic.
“The way it’s being done stigmatizes the entire community and makes Muslims objects of suspicion to their neighbors and coworkers,” Awad said in 2004. “… This is more politics than security … Muslims should be enlisted in the war on terror, not blacklisted.”
All in all, continuing conflicts with the Muslim world is counterintuitive to Romney’s economic mission, writes Harvard University professor and Foreign Policy contributor Stephen Walt. Walt argues that focusing more on the home-front rather than expanding conflicts to combat an entire group of people is the best way to strengthen America.
“It is worth remembering that the United States rose to great-power status by staying out of trouble abroad and by concentrating on building a powerful economy here at home (which is what China is doing today),” Walt wrote. “It also helped that the other great powers bankrupted themselves through several ruinous wars. The United States fought in two of those wars, but we got in late, suffered far fewer losses, and were in a better position to ‘win the peace’ afterwards.”