So, next Monday night, the debates phase of the campaign comes to an end. After that, it's just the candidates and the voters. I assume Rmoney's folks agreed to end the series of debates on foreign policy, typically a strong issue for the incumbent, because they want to pound the President on allegedly "deserting" Israel and "failing to lead" in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. It's a tough row to hoe.
In the first place, the President hasn't "deserted" anyone. He has taken positions subtly different from those taken by the current Israeli government, as all American Presidents have from time-to-time, for the simple reason that our two countries are allies, but we're not joined at the hip. American Presidents have a duty to discourage Israeli policies which they believe might have detrimental consequences for Israel or the United States. Launching a precipitous attack on Iran is one example. Failing to deal honestly with the Palestinians is another. We support a viable, independent Palestinian state; we do not support an Israeli protectorate or puppet masquerading as a Palestinian state. A military strike against Iran, with or without provocation, would be Dubyah's misadventure in Iraq to the tenth power. It would go on for years and would permanently alienate us from the Muslim world - all of it.
The current Israeli government is as radical as any Israeli government ever has been; it doesn't even have the united support of the Israeli electorate and is politically hanging by a thread. Of course the President isn't going to hang it around his country's neck.
As for the Middle East as we know it today, we have no one to thank for that but Dubyah. His foolish war against Iraq had the unintended consequence of elevating Iran to the status of the dominant power in the region. Perhaps Dubyah's sketchy education didn't include learning the old axiom, "power abhors a vacuum". So, by destroying Iraq, he left Iran unchallenged in the region. The President also demonstrated in Egypt, in Libya, and now, in Syria, the wisdom of not putting American "boots on the ground" in the region; of helping local revolutions only when we have allies in the effort with us and only by supplying the revolution with materiel and air support. It worked in Libya. It was unnecessary in Egypt. It is unwise in Syria until we have a much, much clearer picture of who the revolutionaries are.
Rmoney's attempts at showing "leadership" elsewhere seem to be limited to making a fool of himself anytime he gets off the plane at a foreign airport and, specifically, insulting one of our oldest, closest allies to the extent that CONSERVATIVE politicians were criticizing him publicly. If that's leadership, God help us all.
Rmoney's concepts of foreign policy and leadership are even more simplistic than his domestic policies. He seems to live in a computer-game world - one of absolutes; of vivid colors and contrasts, and of no subtlety or nuance whatsoever. He has no comprehension, none at all, of the complexity of the world in which we are no longer the biggest kid on the block and which is no longer divided into camps dominated by super powers. The nearest example of a Rmoney foreign policy that comes to mind is Dubyah's. He started a war that killed over four thousand Americans simply so he could strut around playing cowboy. It cost us hundreds of billions of dollars (all of it on the credit card) and left us with a region more hostile to us than at any other time in history. Rmoney can be made a fool of on national television Monday night, and I hope the President does it with relish!