Romey Versus the Jihadists

I think there's pretty good reason to believe that Mitt Romney's conduct of foreign policy would be better than Rudy Giuliani's, which is precisely what makes the kind of rank ignorance on display here so frightening:

The idea that we should be laying awake at night afraid that a group of at most several thousand people who control almost no territory or valuable military equipment might establish a universal caliphate or "collapse freedom loving nations like us" is ridiculous. Al-Qaeda's goals are absurd, and obviously so, and one ought to say so confidently. The fact that a relatively small group of people with lunatic goals can nevertheless knock down giant office buildings and murder a huge number of people is, indeed, something to be afraid of but not nearly on the grand geopolitical level Romney is postulating here.

On top of that what does this have to do with Iran?

Comments

oh my god this is terrifying. even as base-rallying stuff it's unforgivable. but it's romney-esque, i.e., he knows what he's saying is utterly untruthful, but has no qualms whatsoever about saying it.

at least bush believes the fantastical sputum he serves up.

Posted by lucretius | October 12, 2007 10:44 AM

Asking rhetorical questions, again?

Posted by Brian Ulrich | October 12, 2007 10:56 AM

This is just Mitt throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks.

WRT the republicans in the primary, it's a pity they can't all lose.

Posted by TW Andrews | October 12, 2007 11:04 AM

It would be nice if there was one candidate for President who would frankly acknowledge that the reason we are in conflict with the arab or wider muslim world is because a large % of the world's oil reseserves are located in the Persian Gulf, the entire world demands that it be extracted, period, and the U.S., having the largest economy in the world is going to be heavily involved is said extraction, and thus the internal policitcal conflicts in that part of the world. The real danger is not what they will do to us, although as the ubiquity of destructive technology increases, muslim terrorists certainly have a decent chance to inflict a great deal of harm, but rather what we will do to them. The history of militarily and technologically weak people who sat atop highly demanded natural resources, while engaging in hostilities with massively more powerful peoples, is filled with a massive amount of slaughter, and every person throughout the world who desires to fill their gas tank, or heat their home, at the lowest possible price, is part of what may be an extraordinarily grim process.

Posted by Will Allen | October 12, 2007 11:13 AM

I sometimes tire of, but will never completely give up on, correcting Yglesias's typos: "Romey"? Really?

Posted by washerdreyer | October 12, 2007 11:40 AM

How is he going to increase the military by 100,000? Will more people just start magically joining the military under president Romney, or will he do things to make being in military service more attractive to potential recruits? Say increasing pay, or even leaving Iraq?

No I think he just pulled that number out of nowhere.

Posted by mad6798j | October 12, 2007 11:42 AM

DIdn't a small bunch of crazies take over the government of the United States in order to wreck their havoc around the world?

Posted by RJ | October 12, 2007 12:35 PM

"They must collapse freedom loving nations, like us."
Romney is saying that the U.S. is collapsing freedom loving nations.

Posted by Grogor | October 12, 2007 1:04 PM

"The fact that a relatively small group of people with lunatic goals can nevertheless knock down giant office buildings..."

It is most certainly NOT a fact.

Go to ae911truth.org.

More than 70 licensed architects and engineers have put their livelihoods and professional reputations on the line by joining Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and signing the following statement:

"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7."

Posted by Doug Latto | October 12, 2007 1:35 PM

oh goodie, the crazies are out.

It's actually a really effective ad, if you think about who the average viewer will be.

Posted by right | October 12, 2007 1:46 PM

a group of at most several thousand people who control almost no territory or valuable military equipment

Ah, but what if you add the assumption that they are working in concert with Iran, Hezbollah, Syria, extremists inside Iraq, etc. etc.?

This would be insane, of course, but it's what they believe.

Posted by Jason C. | October 12, 2007 2:05 PM

[i]"The fact that a relatively small group of people with lunatic goals can nevertheless knock down giant office buildings..."

It is most certainly NOT a fact.[/i]

How do you know that Matt wasn't talking about the Bush administration?

Posted by Lexington 500 | October 12, 2007 2:10 PM

"...ask your doctor about Bigoted Jingoistic Demagoguery (tm)"

Posted by The Ocitber Fool | October 12, 2007 2:11 PM

It would be nice if there was one candidate for President who would frankly acknowledge that the reason we are in conflict with the arab or wider muslim world is because a large % of the world's oil reseserves are located in the Persian Gulf, the entire world demands that it be extracted, period, and the U.S., having the largest economy in the world is going to be heavily involved is said extraction, and thus the internal policitcal conflicts in that part of the world.

You've got my vote, Will. It's refreshing to read some common sense for a change, thank you.

Posted by chuck | October 12, 2007 2:38 PM

How can we respond to the threat of the Caliphate? Revive the Byzantine empire.

Posted by Ian | October 12, 2007 3:19 PM

I read Burma may have some offshore oil reserves...

Posted by bob | October 12, 2007 3:23 PM

He's such a fucking bullshit merchant. I really don't want to cast aspersions at Mormons, but that's the kind of fast-talking nonsense the door-knockers use to get across the threshold.

Iran and the Caliphate? It would be funny if he weren't running for president.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 12, 2007 6:42 PM

The problem isn't Romney, the problem are the 50% of the American people who buy into this BS and have already signed off on any future military and intelligence actions including carpet bombing and torture, as long as somebody mentions the war on terror as a justification. "We've always been at war with Eurasia" is sadly not merely a literary reference anymore.

Posted by novakant | October 12, 2007 8:44 PM

Matt -

stop covering for the impending caliphate you islamonazifacist Dhimmi

The fact is if we leave Iraq, the jihad caliphate will come to our shores. That was Bush's strategic plan all along - build the Islamic Caliphate in Iraq to keep it away from us. As Santorum so brilliantly explained, the eye of islamonazi mordor is fixed away from the Shire (America). If we leave, then the eye and the forces of caliphate islamonazism will follow us home.

How, you ask? Easy. They will hide in the cargo hold of our planes. Also, when our battleships retreat bin laden will follow them on a magic carpet with his scimitar in hand, because everyone knows bin Laden can only find the United States if we retreat and lead him to it like Hanzel and Gretel.

Dhimmi's, every last one of you.

Posted by Neal Murray | October 12, 2007 8:58 PM

The presumption is that Romney actually believes what he says.

He doesn't.

Bush doesn't, either. That's why he can't talk straight - because he doesn't care what he says to the hoi polloi. As Elwood Blues says, "It's just...bullshit."

These guys just babble and expect you to bow down and agree with them. Instead of beating their chests like gorillas or some rural redneck, they babble. That's upper class human alpha male behavior.

If you disagree with them publicly, they sic the Secret Service or the local cops on you. They don't care if you disagree with them privately, as long as there's nothing you can do about it and you don't challenge them publicly in front of the rest of the troop, er, crowd.

None of these guys is the least bit interested in facts or telling you the truth - or even expecting you to be interested in the truth.

It's all "vote for me because I'm the biggest, loudest monkey in the troop."

Nothing else to it.

But when Obama says it, Matt hands him a banana.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 13, 2007 1:06 AM

I'm surprised these guys didn't think David Koresh was going to take over the US. Gays and Muslims and Mexicans, oh my!

Posted by Reality Man | October 13, 2007 7:48 AM

It's a lost cause if a Harvard stand-out doesn't LIE awake nights.

Posted by Sadobserver | October 13, 2007 2:32 PM

My only response to this ad is:

9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11.9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11. 9/11.

and

9/11.

Got it?

Posted by Rudee Giulani | October 13, 2007 5:02 PM

I don't know if Romney believes his crap or not. There's no way of knowing. One thing I am sure about is that Romney doesn't have even a molecule of understanding of the situation. Neither do any of the other Republican candidates.

From Eisenhower through W - never trust foreign policy to Republicans.

Posted by cal1942 | October 13, 2007 9:18 PM

Mitt Romney: "Their goal is to unite the world under a single Jihadist caliphate."

Somehow this goal has escaped the notice of Wikipedia and the Congressional Research Service.

I'm disappointed that Matthew Yglesias failed to point out that Romney wasn't telling the truth here. Suppose you are a Muslim living in the Middle East, trying to figure out if al Qaeda's ideology makes sense. You hear candidate Romney, or, if Romney achieves his wish, President Romney, attacking al Qaeda by lying about al Qaeda's goals. This suggests that Romney has no legitimate argument against al Qaeda, which may not convince you that al Qaeda is correct, but does strengthen their case.

Our conflict with al Qaeda is basicly ideological. Yes, we can disrupt the organization in various ways, but the fundamental issue is: Can al Qaeda convince large numbers of people to kill Americans? One would think that Americans, even Republican primary voters, would want a president who doesn't simply throw in the towel.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | October 14, 2007 6:12 PM