Mitt Romney & NATO

Has anyone been able to discover Romney’s official position on NATO? I sent his office a couple of emails requesting a position and have had no response.

With Obama switching his ‘focus’ from Europe to Asia, we could and should expect a down-sizing of the US presence in NATO. Especially if the default sequestration of $1.2 trillion occurs by default (the bi-partisan committee having failed to agree on cuts voluntarily) half of which Obama has already declared will hit defence. Romney has stated that he would reverse that specific cut if he attains office. Well, hoe probably would say that and he may even plan on doing that. But that’s just a slice of wonga. What are his real aims and intents for continuing NATO involvement?

Additionally, Obama appears to have gone soft on Russia (who did not attend the recent NATO or G8 summits) with indications the current nuclear defence shield planned for Europe (anti-missile sites based in Poland and a couple of other Baltic states) may be a bargaining chip for a new SALT treaty with the Ruskies.

With Russia carrying out ‘mock’ Baltic state invasions with a simulated nuclear attack on Warsaw last year, I find the lack of backbone from Obama, indeed the clear message from him of shift away from Europe and into Asia, is probably something Europe should be worrying about.

The major NATO exercise planned for next year will I suspect be very much in the balance if Obama retains office, but with no clear position from Romney, hard to tell if he would be any better a bet.

That’s what I thought.

Well, Obama should really do so as he stands to make some capital out of it.

The US has a veritable constellation of consultation teams in Brussels at the moment to “support and provide assistance” to the various EU nations and the EU politburo directly. Obama needs Europe not to crash, or at least, not before November. He’s far from home and dry come election day and Europe will matter to him. While he can’t wave a magic wand (though he could print some more dollars to be ‘held’ in Europe) he can be seen to be lending more support to resolving the issue. Regardless of the eventual outcome.

Europe is feeling the US moving away from it (to Asia, quite understandably) and a sense of re-connection, however faux or short-term, would have a positive effect on the EU. The NATO thing is significant for a number of reasons, primarily NOT defence. IT is a massive commercial and political lever and any suggestion of reduction in funding to it or reduction in support in terms of materiel or resource has significant impact on the quite impressive infrastructure which supplies and manages it in both national governments and commercial enterprises Europe wide.

Nobody has any idea what Romney’s position is with regard to NATO.

Everybody has an idea what Obama’s position is toward NATO and he needs to reverse that as a starting point to bringing the appearance of wanting to assist in the resolution of the crisis in the EU. It won’t make any difference long term to the EU, but it might to Obama over the next 5 months.