Barack Obama's DNC Speech: The President's Foreign Policy

During Barack Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention last night, the President dedicated much time to point out his views on foreign policy. This was very different from Mitt Romney's speech — where he barely scratched the surface of his views on America's foreign policy. Mr. Obama pointed out some key foreign policy points during his first term, but were his points factual and his foreign policy best for America and the world right now?

First the President said "Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did." He went on to say "We've blunted the Taliban's momentum in Afghanistan ... Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama Bin Laden is dead." But is the President speaking in the correct context? Obviously Osama Bin Laden is dead, and the "war" in Iraq has technically ended despite the fact the U.S. still has troops losing their lives there every day. Although the Taliban's and Al Qaeda's momentum has been "blunted" in Afghanistan, there are still terrorism attacks killing dozens of people in the country every day. Afghan officials are also fearful that these insurgency groups will force their way back into political power as soon as the U.S. and ISAF pull out all remaining troops in 2014.

It may seem that I am attempting to bash Mr. Obama, but that is not the case. Rather, I wish to analyze the issues that still exist in the ever fragile Middle East. The President went on to speak about certain successes — how our overall relations with foreign countries are better, and world's success in removing Gaddafi from power in Libya. But what about other Middle Eastern countries such as Iran and Syria? Many believe the U.S. has yet to intervene in Syria because of the election — fearing that military intervention would hurt Mr. Obama's chances at reelection. That is probably true, but is that a just cause for letting thousands of people die each month until our president has a guarantee to office? I don't think so, but it would be foolish to believe there aren't other issues preventing U.S. intervention — namely the influence of Iran.

Mr. Obama said in his speech "The Iranian government must face a world that stays united against its nuclear ambitions." He went on to say "Our commitment to Israel's security must no waver, and neither must our pursuit of peace." These two commitments lay hand-in-hand, but a diplomatic or peaceful resolution to this conflict seems to be growing further out of reach every day. It is my belief that a military conflict with Iran is on the horizon — the country stands for everything President Obama has vowed to stand against.

When it comes to the President and his foreign policy, I would tend to agree with his overall approach: Don't stir the pot, pursue worldwide peace (not just for the U.S.), and think carefully before military action. In my opinion, Mr. Obama is a stronger candidate in terms of his foreign policy and image to foreign countries. In terms of foreign policy, I'm not sure if Mitt Romney is the type of American leader the world needs right now.