Want A "Get Tough" Foreign Policy?

At tomorrow's final presidential debate, the focus will be on foreign policy, which, these days, means the Middle East -- the Arab Spring, the Syrian rebellion, the attack at the Libyan consulate, Iran's nuclear capabilities, and of course, good old Israel.

You can bet the ranch we'll hear Romney bloviate about how Egypt's new president is in the Muslim Brotherhood party, that Syria's Bashar Al Assad is a brutal dictator, that the Benghazi murders were a preventable act of terrorism (and why didn't Obama call it terrorism?), how we can't let Iran develop The Bomb, and that we must protect Israel at all costs.

And you can bet he'll blame Obama for everything -- his "weak" policies have caused all the problems of the world and put us at risk.  Romney will offer himself as the solution.  He will simply "get tough" with all the bad actors, and -- voila! -- the world will be at peace.

Just standard GOP code-speak:  If we don't rattle sabres, make threatening noises, and go to DEFCON 1, then we're weak.  We might start World War III, but we will not be mistaken for pussies!  We are strong!! Grrr!!!  Pardon me, but what bullshit!  (Did these nutty neo-cons learn nothing from Dubya's Iraq debacle?)

Mitt Romney has no more foreign policy experience than you or I.  (Fifteen minutes spent kissing Bibi Netanyahu's ass doesn't count.)  He has no idea what it means to "get tough" on the Big Stage. ("As governor of Massachusetts, I stood up to Vermont and got tough with them about their unfair maple syrup policies.")

Obama didn't go gray for nothin' -- he has the experience and he knows true diplomacy: 

• We aren't the world's cop or its puppetmaster. 
• Emerging democracies may replace their toppled despot with a freely elected douchebag just as bad.  We have to cope. 
• Assad is a horrible killer of his own people, but there are many others like him.  We can't go after every bad guy on the planet.  
• Was the Libyan attack terrorism?  Obama called it that in his first comments, but does it really matter?  Four diplomats are dead.  They had a dangerous job in a dangerous part of the world where bad things happen regularly.  Could it have been prevented?  Perfect security is a dream.  Could 9/11 have been prevented?  Who was in charge then? 
• No one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, but preemptive military action based on an assumption (stop me if this sounds familiar) is foolhardy.  It was reported just today that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to discussions about Iran's nuclear program.  Although "discussion" with the mullahs is iffy business, it's far preferable to hard-line posturing, or bombs. 
• We remain Israel's faithful ally and protector.  This does not mean we take our orders from Netanyahu.
• Trimming some of the fat, fluff and unnecessary programs from our military budget is not a sign of the apocalypse. 

All Mittens can do tomorrow is shriek and accuse and haul out the scare tactics.  I'll take the guy already occupying the chair, Cool Hand Barack.

Oh, I almost forgot China.  The Glove is also going to "get tough" with China.  Sure.  I can hear the Chinese leader right now:  "What a road of clap.  Just brow me, Lomney!"