The Man without a Clue

On his foreign tour, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is proving what a foreign policy amateur he is. Israel loves it.

What does the guy want? What will Mitt Romney do in the event he wins the presidential election in November? That’s a question that unfortunately must remain unanswered, even after his journey abroad. Romney’s foreign policies look hazy — which they probably are. Substance is nowhere to be found. On the other hand, there’s no lack of embarrassment and platitudes.

Such as when he visited London. In plain language, his visit was simply embarrassing, but in no way notable and certainly no cause for fear concerning British-American relations. Those can’t be verbally damaged, even by a Mitt Romney. His outspoken remark that the British capital was perhaps not completely ready to host the games was even probably made out of genuine concern. But Romney needs to learn that as an aspiring president, one doesn’t say such things in public in the event American voters give him the nod on November 6.

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel

The things he said during his visit to Israel were worthy of most notice. Romney tried to differentiate himself from President Obama by taking Israel’s side in the disagreement over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran, he said, must be stopped by military means if necessary. And Jerusalem, he said, was the capital of Israel. Those were powerful statements that openly pleased Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Mitt Romney: Obama’s dangerous opponent

Perhaps these statements — which sound as if they were written in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office — will be successful in gaining Romney sympathy back in America. Maybe even a few voters will be influenced by them; that’s what Romney’s trip is all about. It was aimed at the home audience. Had Romney really wanted to hone his foreign policy skills, as his campaign team insisted from the start, he would have exhibited some form of foreign policy to hone. But he didn’t. His concept didn’t meet the challenges of the complex Middle Eastern situation in the least. Threatening Iran with military action won’t stop its nuclear program; Barack Obama, incidentally, never took the military option off the table either. To declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel will not only fail to bring peace to the region overnight, it will make finding a solution even harder because it’s clear that a solution is only possible if there is a compromise on Jerusalem’s status. If a solution is possible at all, it will be after Romney’s visit to Israel. But to say that the U.S. has no role as a mediator would be counterproductive in the best of all possible worlds and outright dangerous in the worst.

Nothing new on Afghanistan

Romney has no suggestions. Up to now, all he has done is pontificate — about America’s return to its former power, for example. What does that mean? Does he want to return to the unilateral methods of George W. Bush? Does it mean the United States will start another war? We don’t know because Romney won’t say. He had nothing new to suggest about Afghanistan; the old words are already little enough. On the “Arab Spring,” he had nothing but the old platitude that it can’t be allowed to change into an “Islamic Winter.”

There are ample reasons to criticize Obama’s foreign policies. He’s waging a dirty war against suspected terrorists using unmanned drones and secret military units. The Guantanamo prison camp remains in operation. These are but two points that invite attacks on the Noble Peace Prize laureate.

But Romney would run into trouble criticizing Obama on these points. A majority of Americans find nothing at all wrong with those two actions. The nation is war-weary. In addition, Romney would be vulnerable to attack by the Democrats, who would point out that it was George W. Bush who started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s Obama who has ended one of them and is in the process of ending the other. And Democrats would be absolutely correct making that assertion. It is Bush that most Americans hold responsible for the lasting damage done to their nation.

Republican candidate Romney proved during his tour that he is a foreign affairs amateur, but no election has ever been decided on foreign policy. That fact is Romney’s good fortune and bad news for the rest of the world. The rest of the world has no way to know what a future President Romney has in store for it and having a legitimate interest isn’t enough to force a response before the voters make their decision.