This week, Mitt Romney will begin touring around the world — elaborating on his foreign policy plans. Romney’s goal is to attack President Barack Obama on more than just the economy. Based on Romney’s approach to foreign policy in the past, he needs to separate himself from failing past Republican strategies.

In the past, Romney has argued the United States cannot decrease military spending. Instead, it needs to have the world’s most powerful military, one which no other country would question. The problem with these underlying principles is that they’re not different from the eight years of George W. Bush. The country continues to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan and has lost thousands of American lives. It’s unclear what we’re getting in return.

The strategy Romney wants to pursue is one that seems outdated and an unnecessary policy. Having the largest, most powerful and most expensive military hasn’t stopped terrorists from attacking the United States. Rather, it’s a combination of intelligence and the likelihood that there are few terrorists with the desire and ability to attack the United States. The country is very open to attack — if someone wants to kill himself, it’s not very likely the United States can stop it.

Yet, some of Romney’s positions make sense when considering he thinks Russia is the United States’ “number one geopolitical foe.” His statement would have been appropriate during the Cold War, but it is not now. He does not appear to understand the changing nature of the military’s role. The United States is not waging war against another country anymore.

Romney also seems to forget his whole platform of fiscal responsibility when discussing foreign policy. He has no problem spending more than any other country does on its military. His calls for fiscal responsibility in government and throughout the country are partially genuine. He cannot face cutting military spending.

Many of Romney’s advisors are the same who helped President George W. Bush. Dick Cheney has attended fundraising events with Romney. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wa.) noted out of 24 special advisers to Romney, 17 have worked in the Bush-Cheney administration.

Cheney said, “When I think about the kind of individual I want in the Oval Office in that moment of crisis, who has to make those key decisions, some of them life-and-death decisions, some of them decisions as commander-in-chief, who has the responsibility for sending some of our young men and women into harm’s way, that man is Mitt Romney.”

At a fundraiser in Wyoming, Romney spoke about Obama’s policy, saying, “His foreign policy mistakes, I believe, may be even longer lasting in their negative impact on the country.” If he is planning to attack Obama, he’ll need to not go back to a foreign policy style that has undoubtedly had disastrous effects on the United States. He will need to employ different advisers than those responsible for the failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At the moment, it seems Romney’s policies will have a longer lasting negative effects on the country than Obama’s would. Romney will need to differentiate himself from his Republican predecessor if he intends to convince Americans to agree with him. As of now, he and Bush are far too similar.


Harmen Rockler is a senior newspaper journalism and political science major. His column appears weekly. He can be reached at horockle@syr.edu.

Published on July 23, 2012 at 2:30 pm