What are we to make of Mitt Romney’s foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Academy (VMI)?
In two words: not much. The speech breaks no new ground. Nor does it draw sharp substantive distinctions between Gov. Romney and President Obama when it comes to U.S. foreign policy.
Romney’s VMI remarks are, admittedly, highly critical of the Obama administration. But this is mainly a matter of rhetorical tone. Romney talks passionately and at length about the president’s purported lack of leadership and resolve. When Romney gets down to actual details, however, his proposals differ only modestly from Obama’s current policies. His language on Syria, for instance, is very carefully hedged, stopping well short of a call for direct U.S. military intervention:
“In Syria, I will work with our partners to identify and organize those members of the opposition who share our values and ensure they obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.”
The bottom line: To judge from the VMI speech, Romney’s foreign policy appears to be much like Obama’s, except with more hair on its chest.
Romney’s discussion of the Middle East is extensive but contradictory. He makes much of the imperative of supporting democracy in the Arab world. Then, a few paragraphs later, he promises to strengthen our ties with the autocracies of the Persian Gulf. Lest I be accused of partisanship, let me stipulate: Obama’s position on the Arab Spring is also intellectually incoherent. Neither candidate appears willing to acknowledge the painful truth: that our support for democracy and human rights in the Middle East, though real, takes second place to promoting vital national interests like the security of oil supplies, the sanctity of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, and base rights for our navy in the Persian Gulf.
Joe Barnes is the Baker Institute’s Bonner Means Baker Fellow. From 1979 to 1993, he was a career diplomat with the U.S. Department of State, serving in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.