The former governor and presidential hopeful is set to deliver his first major address on national security issues tonight at the George Bush Presidential Library Center in College Station, Texas.
Here is a link to some of the excerpts, all of which look to be red meat for conservatives frustrated by the current administration's failure to better articulate the rationale behind its policies.
Tough on Pelosi:
"And then the Speaker of the House helped dignify a state sponsor of terror. At this time of war, her action stands as one of the most partisan, divisive, and ill-considered of any national leader in this decade."
Strong on Iraq:
"Unity also means supporting our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The challenges there are immense. But President Bush and General Petraeus are implementing a new strategy for Iraq - and it deserves a chance to succeed. Running away from Iraq now would embolden our enemies, giving them the sanctuary they need to plan more devastating attacks against our country. In this difficult time, some in Congress are trying to deny our troops the resources they need. This is a grave error. We need to rally behind the effort, and support our men and women in uniform in this time of war."
Committed to the Long War:
"I think many of us still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, by Jihad. Understandably, we focus on Afghanistan and Iraq. Our men and women are dying there. We think in terms of countries, because we faced countries in last century's conflicts. But the Jihad is much broader than any one nation or nations. For radical Islam, there is one conflict and one goal - replacing all modern Islamic states with a caliphate, destroying America, and conquering the world."
What really catches my eye though is Romney's commitment to spending "at least four percent of our gross domestic product" on defense. Romney also says "we must increase the size of our military by 100,000 troops." It is unclear whether Romney is including supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in that four percent figure, but if he is it's going to be very difficult to sustain the buildup of forces, the reset of equipment damaged in Iraq, and the Pentagon's big-ticket procurement programs, all on 4 percent of GDP.
Right now defense spending, including supplementals, for FY 2007 amounts to 4.4 percent of GDP, or $647 billion (that number likely does not include whatever pork Pelosi & Co. add to the supplemental). Unfortunately, while that number will rise gradually over the next two years, it is set to fall rather dramatically in the 2010 to 2013 time period. Which is why the Heritage Foundation is running a campaign called Four Percent For Freedom--the aim of which is to prevent defense spending from bottoming out at 3.2 percent of GDP in 2012.
It seems reasonable to conclude that Mitt Romney has just officially joined the Heritage Foundation's campaign. But is 4 percent really enough to provide the strong national defense posture that Romney is promising? During the Gulf War, defense spending stood at 4.6 percent of GDP, during the Reagan buildup, the figure was 6 percent, and at the height of the Vietnam War, the number stood at 9.8 percent. All those figures pail in comparison to the 35 percent of GDP that the United States was spending on defense at the end of the Second World War.
Of course, we are talking about smaller slices of a much bigger pie now. So while percentages have dropped, spending in dollar terms has remained far more steady. But isn't that all the more reason to take a bold stand and push for a figure closer to 5 percent--with that kind of money, concerns about readiness and manpower could be addressed in concert with an aggressive procurement schedule. Otherwise, even with 4 percent, the Pentagon may have to choose between more weapons and more warfighters. We need both.
Update: Romney press secretary Kevin Madden just emailed to say that the 4 percent figure would not include supplemental spending. He also points to this speech Romney delivered in Herzliya, Israel in January as the governor's first major speech on national security--I'm not sure it counts if it's given outside the United States though.
