Obama versus Romney

I was one of millions around the world rooting for Barack Hussain Obama in 2008. And, no, I did not root for him because I mistakenly thought he was a Muslim as his middle name indicates; but because he represented change - change from the disastrous neo-conservative policies of the Bush-Chaney era which supported unilateral military intervention and denigrated liberalism - a political ideology that as I understand it favours freedom and equality.
Obama during the 2008 campaign told the world that if he was elected, the US would not undertake unilateral military intervention, allow the intrusive Bush-era Patriot Act to lapse, close down the Bush-era decision to incarcerate 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo Bay without recourse to a court of law and disallow the Bush administration's approved rendition policy that allowed the military and CIA operatives to torture terror suspects in countries where torture is allowed. And as I, with the rest of the world, watched with bated breath the Americans voted for Obama as their first black president proving that the majority of the US public not only supported a change from Bush-era policies but Americans had elected a minority President. The world, with me included, thought a new era was at hand and the US would revert to its cherished democratic principles identified by its founding fathers.
On May 26 last year Obama used an autopen to sign a four-year extension of key provisions in the USA Patriot Act that included roving wiretap searches of business records and conducting surveillance of individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities but not linked to terror groups. And four years down the line Guantanamo Bay is still in operation, the regional superpower Israel defied Obama by refusing to end settlement expansion and Obama has insisted in the three recent debates with Romney that US foreign policy would remain completely and what many Muslims believe unfairly supportive of Israel if he is reelected. Bush's axis of evil namely Iran and North Korea continue to be sanctioned and have not responded to Obama's overtures of conditional peace.
However, the US pulled out of Iraq during Obama's watch yet Iraq remains a hotbed of intrigue and the US engaged in attacks on installations in Libya with the UK and France only after the UN Security Council passed a resolution on 19 March 2011. However no such attacks were launched against other countries associated with the Arab Spring leading critics to accuse the Obama administration of following the age-old US foreign policy of military engagement in only those countries where there is coveted oil.
Americans, however, did not vote for Obama in 2008 because the world had endorsed him or his foreign policy but because of his vision to turn the economy around through massive outlay on bailout packages. There is no question that the US economy remains in recession though the Obama campaign blames Bush-era policies, the Eurozone crisis and over valuation of the Chinese yuan as some of the reasons behind the ongoing recession; and he promises more of the same policies that would turn the economy around if given enough time. Romney in contrast proposes a change in policy that envisages support for the small businessman as the engine of growth that would lead to the revival of the economy and creation of jobs - a small businessman who Romney argues has been hard hit by Obama care costs to him. As thousands continue to lose their homes and jobs are not being created fast enough to suit the long lines of unemployed few of the Bush-era undecided are likely to vote for Obama. It is no wonder that the Obama campaign continues to focus on the Americans being better off than a year ago while the Romney camp focuses on Americans being worse off than four years ago.
Pakistan is the only country today where the public favours Mitt Romney as opposed to Obama and it is widely believed that the reason is Obama's commitment to pull out US troops in Afghanistan by 2014 - a commitment that Romney states is subject to a revisit based on the ground realities at that time. However, both Obama and Romney fully support the current number of drone strikes in Pakistan. Be that as it may apart from Romney's unflinching support for Israel, even if it requires invading Iran, and pressuring the Chinese to lower their yuan further the world sees Obama as a better option than Romney. It is now up to the American public to vote with the world or against it this time around. Romney during the last debate did a number of major flip flops on foreign policy, bringing him closer to the position taken by the Obama administration, and it is doubtful if US foreign policy would change dramatically irrespective of who is in power.
Be that as it may, Romney during the debate said Pakistan should have been taken on board when attacking Osama bin Laden compound and Obama said had Pakistan been taken on board bin Laden would have still been alive. For me and for my country people the issue was never that of killing a terrorist who had killed thousands of Muslims around the world as well as in Pakistan but one of not getting value for money we spent on defence preparedness. And needless to add if the situation had been reversed and one who had committed acts of terror on our soil was being provided sanctuary in another country Pakistanis would unhesitatingly support a commando style attempt to kill him.
What I cannot forgive Obama for is also not the escalation in the number of drone strikes, there is evidence to suggest that our civilian and military leadership does support drones, and I am not referring to the Wikileaks but to insistence by several civilian and military personnel that drone technology be given to us to use as and when we deem it appropriate; I am also not concerned with Obama's commitment to US troop withdrawal by 2014 in Afghanistan which our civilian and military leadership genuinely believes would not only exponentially decrease our relevance to the world's sole superpower with obvious repercussions on the extension of the coalition support fund and assistance package but also strengthen the Pakistani Taliban through increased sanctuaries in Afghanistan. My logic being that I firmly believe we have the capacity to be self sufficient if we reform our tax structure, our civil service and indeed our power sector and at the same time go after the Taliban proactively by increasing our policing and military expenditure for after all the US would eventually leave Afghanistan and we would have to deal with the situation sooner or later.
Perhaps endorsement of Romney over Obama by Pakistanis may well be the cause of Obama getting some extra votes, given the general negative perception of Pakistan in the US, but I would still like to detail what no man with integrity and an ability to learn valuable lessons from history would have supported; and yet Obama did. He demanded the release of Raymond Davis (who killed two in broad daylight in Lahore and was the inadvertent cause of the death of a third cyclist by the US consulate car he summoned to his defence mercilessly backing into him) as he enjoyed diplomatic immunity - immunity that Obama well knew he did not enjoy as he was a CIA contractor; and immunity that the US president should have waived even if he did enjoy it given the heinousness of his crime.
Davis was never tried for murder on the streets of Lahore, contrary to the promise made by the US Embassy, but is being tried in a US court for assaulting 50 year old Maes when he refused to vacate a parking spot that Davis maintained he saw before Maes. In the ensuing scuffle between the two men the man trained for violence with anger management issues - Davis - broke Maes' vertebra and charges against him were increased to second-degree assault (a felony), a crime of violence that carries a five-year mandatory minimum. Neither Maes nor a third man present at the scene have been charged in the incident. Two murders on the Lahore streets got him away scot-free with much fanfare with his President's connivance, while one can only hope that he gets some of his just deserves because of assaulting a US national on US soil.
To my mind Obama did not learn a valuable lesson from the history of Osama bin Laden: that anyone trained to kill with major anger management issues is not likely to change his spots in peace time or, as in the case of Davis, when he returns to his country. However there was one major difference: while bin Laden continued terror attacks Davis is being held accountable by the US judicial system. Yes one can fault our civilian and military establishment for not ensuring that Davis was brought to trial for murdering Pakistanis but this is about Obama and why I simply can not support the more liberal and likeable guy instead of Romney.-(The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the newspaper.)