Last Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave a speech to the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Va., to present his position on foreign policy.

It was the first speech made by the candidate after the first round of presidential debates that many media outlets and political analysts perceived him to have won. The policy address entitled, “The Mantle of Leadership” concentrated heavily on the Middle East and its relationship to the United States.

“Romney seems to want to have a stronger presence in the Middle East and a more direct approach than Obama,” said sophomore political science major Jeff Hodgkinson.

“Obama’s policies in the Middle East and Asia have drawn a lot of attention and controversy. Romney should take advantage of this and have a different approach to draw in voters.”

Romney’s main objective was to distance his foreign policy stance from President Obama’s. This was made clear by his attacks on the president for having a passive strategy that relies on hope.

He blamed Obama for not standing by Israel and making its relationship with Palestine worse, not supporting people in Libya and Syria, failing to be aggressive with Iran, cutting military spending, not establishing a trade agenda, not forming partnerships with countries who share the same views and ultimately not living up to his promises.

“A challenger can get away with extreme charges in international affairs they could not get away with in domestic affairs since that information is public,” said Patrick Callahan, a political science professor at DePaul with expertise in foreign policy.

“It is easy to associate a bad thing that happens with the current administration; however it dismisses cause and effect, and real responsibility. To attribute blame is not to establish blame.”

Romney promised that as president, he would reestablish duty and honor in the world with American leadership by making the 21st century an “American century.” 

“I believe that if America does not lead, others will- others who do not share our interests and our values- and the world will grow darker, for our friends and for us,” said Romney.

“Our friends and allies across the globe do not want less American leadership. They want more-more of our moral support, more of our security cooperation, more of our trade, and more of our assistance in building free societies and thriving economies.”

Callahan says the Romney campaign really has not laid out any clear plans; there are only general themes that emphasize a shift from the Obama administration.

These include an inclination to divide the world up between friends and rivals, an increase in military strength and the importance of a strong U.S. leadership in the world rather than collaborating with international institutions.

“The United States will choose on its own what to do and how to do it,” said Callahan.

Romney’s course of action in the Middle East includes many undertakings. How likely these undertakings can be achieved is uncertain, but it would, nevertheless, be very difficult.

“I thought his strengths in the speech were his views on Israel and standing strong for American values around the world,” said Hodgkinson. “His speech was weak when he discussed Afghanistan. He didn’t seem to have a strong plan of action.”

As president, Romney claimed he would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, reaffirm a strong commitment to Israel’s security, strengthen partnerships in the Gulf, increase national defense and military spending including an upsurge in naval ships, help nations such as Syria, Afghanistan and Libya fight tyranny and develop democratic institutions, champion free trade, bring peace between Palestine and Israel and acquire a successful transition in Afghanistan to its security forces by the end of 2014.

DePaul political science professor Scott Hibbard felt that the speech lacked real substance. “He is saying the he will lower taxes, increase military spending and balance the budget. There is no way this can be done. The same approaches were taken by both the Bush and Reagan administrations, which resulted in deficits,” said Hibbard.

“There is also a lot of emphasis on American power as a fundamentally good force and the struggle between freedom and oppression. It is great to talk about leadership, but he fails to acknowledge how foreign policy is changing in the post-Iraq-War era.”

In a close election, however, the skepticism of American power and the criticism of the United States as an authoritative nation do not win votes. “It is important to keep in mind that this is a campaign speech,” said Hibbard. “People in campaigns say a lot of things and make promises that are impossible to fulfill. Campaign speech is different from reality.”

Since Election Day is quickly approaching, both candidates will try to avoid the complicated details of international affairs that tend to polarize voters.  However, the issue must be addressed in the remaining two presidential debates, both of which will touch on foreign policy.

“I think Romney is able to dominate the next debate concerning international affairs no so much because people subscribe to his ideas, but because it will cast doubt on the president’s leadership,” said Callahan. “A lack of confidence will be devastating for either candidate.”