Over the past month, I've had a lot of positive things to say about Mitt's approach to national security. That's good, because Paul Ryan's national security positions are unspecific and vague. On national security, Paul Ryan is a blank slate.
In looking into Paul Ryan's record on national security issues I was amazed at it's thinness, especially for someone who has been in Congress for a decade and a half. Paul Ryan supports standard Republican boilerplate on Afghanistan, he voted for some sanctions against Iran, and he opposed cutting and running in Iraq five years ago. That being said, Paul Ryan has maintained remarkable silence on many national security issues, from border security, to domestic Islamic subversion, to Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Paul Ryan does deserve credit, however, for his position on Obama's War in Libya. Last year, Paul Ryan said:
"[Obama] didn't go to Congress, didn't ask for authority, the leading from behind strategy at NATO I think was very strange, and I don't think they had a mission well defined.This is important, because it demonstrates that Paul Ryan understands that the issue of Congressional approval supersedes any discussion of the merits or demerits of the policy.
I had hoped Mitt would pick Alan West or Michele Bachmann, both of whom have demonstrated national security leadership in the past year. That obviously didn't happen. Paul Ryan's addition to the ticket tells us nothing about the national security policies of a Romney/Ryan administration.
Bottom Line: Paul Ryan is a blank slate on National Security. Unlike Barack Obama and Joe Biden, however, neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan is actively committing treason against the United States. That's good enough.
Update: John Bolton on this topic.