Of course, saying stupid things is kind of Bidens MO, so what can we expect (apart from a beatdown from Ryan)?

I can only give you my own impression, of course, but am willing to do that much.

He himself, not very, but as Legolas notes he is not much of a foreign policy wonk, and the consequent need for surrogates who are might combine with the general GOP hawkishness to produce a rather bellicose Secy. of State and foreign policy team. Hard to say, really. McCains convention speech made it sound like he would be a disaster as Secy. of State. People around the world tell him they long for US invasion? That they have not lost faith in America but wonder if we have lost faith in ourselves? What people, where? I have yet to meet anyone overseas who questions Americas faith in itself; widespread certainty of it is what prompted Obama to reassure the rest of the world with what Republicans falsely call his "apology tour."

It would depend on how heavily Romney must rely on others for the foreign policy leadership required of him, and whether party insiders can force a hawk on him rather than a more pragmatic choice. He strikes me as more inclined to debate, diplomacy and consensus than force. The best indicator of his policy may be his much-discussed business record but, like all of Romneys resume, it is ambiguous: The two adjectives I read most in discussions of Romney as CEO are "decisive" and "risk-averse." Given the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan that might make him a decisive dove, but it hard to say; one downside of elevating governors to the presidency is that they tend to have less foreign policy experience than Congressmen (not that Sen. Obama acquired much without even finishing his first term.)


No idea, honestly. The determiner is probably how close Iran gets to nukes, how quickly and how verifiable each assessment is. The days of American nation-building anywhere we lack a vital national interest are probably over; there is simply no upside. Nowhere it is arguably necessary has peaceful democratic leaders waiting to replace its totalitarian regime, nor could any survive without long term US military support if they existed. Therefore any such US efforts would cost us many lives and dollars, provoke ceaseless bitter criticism at home, abroad and in-theater, only to leave us with a choice like that between Mubarak or the Muslim Brotherhood. Either way we set up a regime as corrupt and brutal as its predecessor, becoming complicit in its excesses. Absent a serious imminent threat to ourselves or a close ally, it is simply not worth the cost for negative return. Consequently, while I think we would militarily oppose a nuclear Iran and/or an attack on Israel or South Korea, I doubt Romney or Obama would do much more.


Probably not, again depending on 1) whether the Secy. of State is someone who wants to invade EVERYONE and 2) whether Romney is sufficiently confident in his own foreign policy acumen to reject such desires.