In Search of Answers From Mr. Romney

Mitt Romney mounted a big foreign policy display on a flag-draped stage at the Virginia Military Institute on Monday, serving up a lot of tough-sounding sound bites and hawkish bumper stickers, some of them even bumping up somewhere close to the truth, to give the appearance that he would be stronger and more forceful on international affairs than President Obama.

He seems to consider himself, ludicrously, a leader similar to the likes of Harry Truman and George Marshall, and, at one point, he obliquely questioned Mr. Obama’s patriotism. The hope seems to be that big propaganda, said loudly and often, will drown out Mr. Obama’s respectable record in world affairs, make Americans believe Mr. Romney would be the better leader and cover up the fact that there is mostly just hot air behind his pronouncements.

Mr. Romney’s stated policies in Monday’s speech, just as they have been in the past, are either pretty much like Mr. Obama’s or, when there are hints of differences, would pull the United States in wrong and even dangerous directions. His analysis of the roots of various international crises is either naïve or deliberately misleading.

One new element is Mr. Romney’s assertion that the threats have “grown worse.” He desperately wants to undercut the edge that voters have given Mr. Obama on foreign policy, even before he ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden. But he offers no real evidence to back up that particular claim, and if it were true that the threats have been so much worse for so long, it’s odd that Mr. Romney hasn’t really talked about them before.

Militancy in the Arab world is a serious issue that needs to be addressed by both candidates. The Obama administration has been seized with the challenge of extremists from Yemen to Somalia to the Philippines and beyond since taking office and has used various strategies to deal with it. But, as much as Mr. Romney wishes voters would believe otherwise, it was President George W. Bush’s unnecessary war in Iraq that gave Iran more room to maneuver and fueled anti-Americanism.

The situation has become more complicated since the Arab Spring revolutions that brought Muslim countries more freedoms — and more turmoil and more ways for extremists to create trouble.

But it is not, as Mr. Romney seems to think, one big monolithic struggle against those who are seeking to wage “perpetual war on the West.” There are different strains of Islam and many kinds of Muslims with different political agendas. To create smart policy, American presidents have to see the nuances, not just the slogans, and be willing to work with many different kinds of leaders.

Mr. Romney seized again on the Sept. 11 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and the murders of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others, to make cheap political points. He said the attack “was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland” on Sept. 11, 2001, an exaggeration that he can be making only for political effect.

The administration initially characterized last month’s attack as a spontaneous demonstration gone awry, but, within two days, described it as an organized terrorist act by extremists with possible links to Al Qaeda. But that organization has changed so much, and splintered so much, since 2001 that to suggest a link to the attacks in New York and Washington seems untenable. In any event, in times of crisis, as Mr. Romney must know, it is not unusual to modify an analysis when new intelligence is obtained.

One of Mr. Romney’s main complaints is that Mr. Obama hasn’t helped America’s friends. In Iraq, Mr. Romney is right when he points to rising violence and the rising influence of Iran. But when Mr. Romney faults Mr. Obama’s withdrawal of American troops from the country, he never says what he would have done as president, or what he would do. Would he have refused to withdraw forces, or would he redeploy them now, even though the Iraqis did not and do not want them? It was not Mr. Obama’s withdrawal that left Iraq a political mess. It was Mr. Bush’s reckless invasion and inept running of the war.

Mr. Romney continues to fault Mr. Obama for not leading on Syria, where thousands have died at the hands of President Bashar al-Assad’s forces. While he says he would make sure the rebels get the weapons they need, he never answers the bottom-line question: Should the United States go to war there?

He said he would toughen sanctions on Iran. If he intends to go beyond what Mr. Obama is already doing with international support, he should say so and spell it out. Otherwise, the only room he leaves to the right of Mr. Obama’s policy is to wage war on Iran — a catastrophically foolish idea that most Americans recognize as folly.

Mr. Romney repeated an outright lie about Mr. Obama’s military spending policy to make himself appear more concerned about America’s defense. He accused Mr. Obama of favoring “deep and arbitrary cuts” to the military when, in fact, those cuts, if they happen, were mandated by a deal demanded by the Republicans to end their trumped-up crisis over the debt ceiling.

One good piece of news is that on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mr. Romney has remodified his position one more time. After telling a private donor party during his primary campaign that “this is going to remain an unsolved problem,” he now endorses a two-state solution, although he never suggests how he would go about this.

Americans deserve an intensive, textured and honest discussion on foreign policy. They did not get it on Monday. Mr. Obama should respond, forcefully, to Mr. Romney on these issues, even before their next debate on Oct. 16, which will include issues of foreign affairs.