Mitt Romney abruptly moderated his foreign policy positions in this week’s debate on issues like ending the war in Afghanistan and averting another conflict in Iran, hoping to neutralize one of President Barack Obama’s main strengths with the election only two weeks away. But the move toward the political center comes with potential pitfalls.
By abandoning several of his sharpest criticisms of Obama from the past several months, Romney risks upsetting some conservatives and reinforcing the allegation – levied repeatedly by the president on Monday night – that his positions lack conviction and leadership.
His aim was to appear sober and serious, a plausible commander in chief, by not engaging in saber-rattling for political points. By narrowing the gap between his positions and those of Obama, he also may have succeeded in giving undecided voters, particularly women, the impression that he would lead a war-weary America into another conflict only reluctantly.
Romney aides said both the tone and substance of their boss’ arguments were intentional and that he carried with him into the debate a key piece of advice: Talk about peace.
Never miss a local story.
The overarching goal, they said, was for Romney to look like a suitable commander. After adopting a more assertively militaristic tone to win the GOP nomination amid challenges from more conservative candidates, he sought at all costs to avoid appearing as a warmonger.
“I want to see peace,” Romney said in his closing statement.
The shifts in the debate were stark for a candidate who only last week described Obama’s foreign policy as “unraveling before our very eyes.”
Unconditionally endorsing Obama’s 2014 deadline for removing U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan, Romney reversed his opposition to what he had termed a “political” timetable that wasn’t necessarily supported by U.S. generals on the ground. And he declared the president’s troop surge in Afghanistan a success.