November is right around the corner. Therefore, both presidential candidates are doing everything in their power to win over those last few states.
One of the major issues in this year’s election is foreign policy, and each candidate has his own agenda. But doesn’t Gov. Mitt Romney’s agenda sound a little familiar?
The past couple years have been a bit dicey in regards to U.S. foreign affairs. With the Arab Spring and the Arab Fall, recent consulate attacks in Libya and Egypt, and many fallen totalitarian regimes attempting to hold elections, the Middle East is still waist deep in a convoluted, complicated mess. President Barack Obama’s team has had its ups and downs dealing with all the curveballs thrown their way. Considering how much has occurred over the past four years, I’m surprised Obama’s hair isn’t all gray.
Yet, Mitt Romney isn’t as impressed. He and his campaign have criticized the Obama administration’s dealings with the Middle East, declaring, “[Hope is not a strategy](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/us/politics/romney-remains-vague-on-foreign-policy-details.html?pagewanted=all),” in regard to Islamist regimes and the possible nuclear threat in Iran. Romney argued that Obama is failing to deliver the global leadership necessary and expected by the American people. By detailing his own foreign policy agenda, Romney attempts to stand out after a low point in his campaign. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that his mishaps garner him more attention than his successes.
Romney’s foreign policy doesn’t differ that much from the president’s. The Obama administration has tried, and in some cases, succeeded, in dealing with the international events that have occurred over the past four years. Obama provided aid and continues to do so for countries that are now holding free elections. He supports the Syrian rebels as they attempt to overthrow the government but remains disassociated in terms of physical combat, and he remains neutral in supporting Israel in redlining Iran for nuclear weapons.
Although Romney seeks to arm the Syrian rebels and create closer ties with Israel, the policies are virtually the same. Romney criticizes Obama’s plan, yet he offers no substantial information behind his own plan. Copy and paste will only get you so far.
In an address Monday, the insurgent Romney, fresh from his debate victory, failed to articulate precisely what his own foreign platform would be, spending his time instead critiquing and attacking the White House and its attempts to alleviate tensions in the Middle East. He particularly addressed the failure of the Obama administration to deal with the consulate attacks in Libya and Egypt. However, Romney’s inability to clearly define his own foreign policy undermines his attacks on Obama.
Thus far, Romney’s platform doesn’t differ markedly from Obama’s. Romney calls for support in backing the Syrian rebels. Isn’t that what we have been doing? Romney states that Obama hasn’t signed one new free-trade agreement in the last four years. False: Obama signed three trade deals with Columbia, Panama and South Korea, the [biggest since NAFTA](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/21/obama-signs-3-trade-deals-biggest-since-nafta/#ixzz28iuZpRLK). But, to be fair, Romney was referring to the fact that the development of the three separate trade agreements began under the Bush administration.
Although Romney does illuminate some of the weak points in Obama’s foreign policy, he doesn’t really offer any possible alternatives. Romney calls for a stronger [backing of pro-democratic policies in Syria](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/us/politics/romney-remains-vague-on-foreign-policy-details.html?pagewanted=all), saying he would “recommit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security.” But he doesn’t state how he would do so.
Constructive criticism of our current commander in chief is beneficial in order to see things get done, but we need to see substantial evidence behind Romney’s claims in order to perceive any differences. We need solutions to the problems the world is facing today. If Romney can present his own clear vision of his individual and unique foreign platform, then the public can begin to determine and visualize the former Massachusetts governor as president. As of now, it all looks the same.
