In the third and final presidential debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney in the race for presidency, the two candidates brought each other to task on the issue of foreign affairs. The main areas of interest were the policy on Iraq and Afghanistan, the reaction to the Arab spring and the nuclear weapon development in Iran.
On the issue of Iraq, the president argued that Romney’s policy was quite weak. He argued that Romney’s policies were inconsistent as well as muddled. In clearing up the maters on his side, he argued that he would still ensure that there is a strong governance and leadership which would propel the foreign relations to a higher level. On this matter, Obama seed to have a stronger stand than Romney, arguing that America would not lessen its stand on the issue. Mr. Romney argued that he would not handle the matters in Iraq as the president has done, calling for more relaxed measures. However, the president was quick to fault this by observing that the same Romney had mentioned a few days ago that he thought that there was the need to send more troops into Iraq. Well, from this perspective, it appears that the president is more consistent in his policies, which makes them quite good for America in the current era.
Closely tied with this matter was the issue of the Arab Spring. Mr. Romney criticized the manner in which the president handled the matter, arguing that at times there was the use of force that was not called for. An example was the deployment and engagement of the American troops in Libya. Well, the president did not relent on this and argued that he still believes that what was done was the best. From this point, it can be seen that the president does not keep on shifting grounds. He is firm on his stand and has no apologies for the manner in which he has handled any of the issues. furthermore, he promises to continue acting in the same manner; strong nd consistent in the issues of foreign affairs.
The last area of contention was the development of the nuclear weapon in Iran. Mr. Romney argued that through the president’s way of handling the matter, Iran is now four years close to having a nuclear weapon. This, as he claims, is because the president has been slow in taking the necessary action. Well, the president reacted to this by observing that as long as he was the president, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon. This statement was given with such confidence in a manner suggesting that the president was certain of his words and was sure to handle the issue effectively. On the other hand, Mr. Romney’s take on the issue seemed to take a more forceful direction, showing that he would call for use of grater force such as military or so. Well, looking at the argument of the two in this case, it can be said that the president’s stand seems to be better. There is no need to use excessive force unless it is required.
After looking at the two spar over the matter of foreign affairs, it can be argued that the president’s stand is more sound for the American people in this era. He takes a strong, consistent and determined position yet with much certainty that it will work. This is the kind of leadership and assurance that Americans need in an era when they live in the fear of terrorism.
