Editorial: Romney's foreign policy vs. Obama's

• Major speech Monday was not a knockout.
• Much of what he said about U.S. might was on target.
• But the difference in strategy is in tone, not details.

Mitt Romney has little experience in foreign policy, and his early efforts during the campaign did not go well: He alienated most of Britain in July by suggesting the Olympics there were poorly run, and looked out of his depth when he clumsily politicized the killing of the U.S. ambassador in Libya in September. The GOP candidate needed a reset, so he gave a major speech on foreign affairs Monday. It was not the knockout he got in last week's debate on the economy.

Much of what Romney said about American might and this nation's role in the world was beyond question, and some of his criticism was on target. The administration still hasn't satisfactorily explained why security was so poor at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, when Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed, or why the administration initially stuck to a bogus story, that the violence was a byproduct of Muslim rage over a video rather than a well-designed attack.

But on the big, difficult issues — from how to address tumult in the Arab world, to the war in Afghanistan to relations with China — Romney separated his policies from Obama's mainly in tone, not details. He adopted a more hawkish, confrontational stance while casting the president as "leading from behind."

The term itself is an indicator of the difficulty Romney faces. It was invented to describe Obama's Libya stategy — before it succeeded in deposing Momammar Ghadafi and over Romney's more hawkish objections.

That irony echoed through Romney's speech.

He said he'd have left troops in Iraq longer. But Obama ended the war on a timetable set by a treaty negotiated with Iraq by the Bush administration.

He said he'd consult his generals before pulling out of Afghanistan, but Obama has not precluded leaving a small force behind. They agree on a 2014 target date.

On Syria, Romney insisted that the administration should do something more to oust Bashir Assad's brutal regime, but he didn't suggest anything that the administration isn't already doing.

On Iran, he said there should be "no daylight" between the U.S. and Israeli policy, but Obama has already said flatly that he will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. So would Romney allow Israel to make the decision that commits the United States to war? And how would he achieve another goal he stated — creation of a Palestinian state — an issue that has caused friction between Israel and a succession of administrations?

Politics aside, the similarity of viewpoints is not a bad thing. The nation benefits from unity and continuity in foreign policy. But to the extent that Romney feels compelled to be confrontational, it is disturbing.

The U.S. is hardly taking a passive stance now, waging two wars — one in Afghanistan, the other against al-Qaeda. It doesn't need another.

Chris Stevens, who advocated the Libya intervention but then lost his life building bonds with the Libyans, would tell you that some problems can only be solved with force but that most demand patient, effective diplomacy — dull though that may be in political campaigns.