Romney's Shallow Foreign Policy

I caught much of Mitt Romney's Virginia speech on foreign affairs last week. The first word that came to mind was "shallow", which I found out later, was also Madeline Albright's description.

The first question I would ask is: other than thumps of his chest and calling Obama weak, what does Romney have to offer?

It is one thing to be critical of the current President. But there was no thoughtful criticism, just hot air rhetoric. In fact, it appeared to me that Romney's only goal in this speech was to attack Barack Obama.

For example, Romney's one phrase about Osama Bin Laden rightly praised the military and intelligence forces, but left out the Commander In Chief. Is Romney so disdainful of Obama that he deliberately chooses to ignore any possible praise? Is this the best behavior we can expect out of our possible chief diplomat?

On the issues of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China, and Russia, Romney offered absolutely no true critique or insight. He either agreed with Obama (though he did not acknowledge this), or he said he would somehow be "stronger" - that's IT.

On Libya and Syria Romney chose the rhetoric over the facts. How would he, as President, react on the current, very fluid situations? Send the troops? If yes, how many would he take out of Afghanistan? 

I didn't hear a peep about Pakistan, one of the most difficult challenges we face.

Finally, Israel-Palestine. As a local sportscaster used to say - "let's go to the videotape".

Between his Florida "secret" speech and his address to the Israeli Knesset, Romney has all but given up on the Palestinians. Calling the problem "unsolvable", and declaring that the they do not "want peace", Romney was resigned to a policy of "kicking the ball down the road, hoping that something happens" (hmmm - so Romney believes in "hope" after all  :-)).

In his (public) Virginia speech, he calls for the 2-state solution. If I were Mahmoud Abbas, would I take this as a sincere proposal?

Granted, Israel's moral and political foundations need to be praised, as Romney rightly did (and Obama regularly does). But as in the "47 percent" remark, Romney, in his speech did not back away from his dismissal of Palestinians. So how, I must ask, does Romney propose to bring the 2 sides together?

I've expressed my frustrations with Abbas and Netanyahu. I don't think they speak to the realm of possibility. They are mired with the past injuries to their respective peoples and choose to influence with fear and nationalistic pride rather than thoughful negotiations.

But Mitt Romney will make no better a leader. In fact, with his attitudes, I don't think Mitt Romney could today even pass the test to be a low-level diplomat.

I hope President Obama can make the case for his leadership over Romney in the next debate.

Thanks for reading.