The Romney campaign's echoing hollowness on foreign policy may--or rather should--soon replace all the talk of the Romney campaign's astonishing political amateurism. The NY Times, in a minor state of shock, quotes a senior staffer:
Mr. Romney’s camp was surprised by the blowback. "While there may be differences of opinion regarding issues of timing ... I think everyone stands behind the critique of the administration, which we believe has conducted its foreign policy in a feckless manner."
Yesterday, after posting a hard-copy litany of those possible "differences" from downright despondent Republicans--the Romney camp's ploy was an "utter disaster," "[un]presidential," "incompetent" and "just unbelievable"--BuzzFeed's Ben Smith mentioned in a television interview that Romney has been, and almost certainly will remain, strikingly silent on actual alternatives to President Obama's "feckless" foreign policy.
Because there aren't any, really. And even the feckless Mitt Romney knows it.
Which is to ask what else, by way of non-Obamian options, could Romney explicitly suggest? That while wrapping up one unpopular, unaffordable land war the United States commit incalculable troops to Egypt? Libya? Syria? That we occupy the entire Middle East? For a decade? A century? Anyone care to do the fiscal math on that, as well as tally the human toll?
OK, how about an air war? But against whom? Pro-American Libyans? Egyptian students? Syrian loyalists fighting just yards away from Syrian rebels?
And what of Israel's jingoistic "red line" against Iran?--which, as Fareed Zakaria observes this morning, even Israel discreetly refuses to draw.
As is true with virtually everything else, press Mitt Romney on foreign policy and you'll meet no intelligent resistance. There's nothing there. He's as hollow on world affairs and America's proper place in them as he is about Obama's shotgunning of welfare checks to shiftless post-Acorn agitators who drag illegal, Medicaid-defrauding, food-stamp-reaping Latinos to the polls.