After watching the third presidential debate, are you clear on America's foreign policy? I thought not. That's because there appears to be no singular foreign policy, rather a series of foreign policies, which must be tailored to fit each nation.
One of Mr. Romney's better lines was, "we can't kill our way out of this mess," meaning terrorism and the Middle East, but he failed to go for the political "kill"; instead he agreed with the president several times. Possibly for the same reasons I mentioned?
What was surprising was the reaction to the debate by some in the "liberal media," which has been in the tank for Mr. Obama since he began running for president. Some of them seemed to retreat from the worshipful attitude they have displayed toward the president since beginning four years ago to assist his self-promotion as a messianic deliverer from our national sins.
Clearly Mr. Romney was playing it safe, a tactic football teams use when they're ahead and want to run out the clock. I wish he had noted, while congratulating the president for giving the go-ahead to kill Osama bin Laden, that what we are confronting now is not so much despotic leaders but a radical faith many believe encourages the murder or subjugation of nonbelievers.
The administration's policy toward Egypt has been to send more aid while attempting to get congressional approval for debt forgiveness.
The Obama administration has a foreign policy, or policies, that have been mostly ineffective, leaving the perception that America is weak. That always invites adventurism, even attacks, by our enemies.
Mr. Romney "won" the foreign policy debate by not losing it. Watch for the Obama campaign's attack ads to intensify, which will make Mr. Obama look even more like the challenger. Mr. Romney has the momentum. Now he must close the deal.