Mr. Romney, where’s the love for the troops serving in Afghanistan?

Listen to this article

After watching the Republican National Convention, it’s no surprise that people are NOT talking about GOP hopeful Mitt Romney’s speech but instead talking about Clint Eastwood’s empty chair speech.

But after the dust settled,  those on the right are now talking about Romney’s speech and it’s not so flattering when it comes to national security issues and the 90,000 men and women serving in Afghanistan. The grade:  Romney has flunked the Commander-in-Chief Test when it comes to foreign policy. Who gave that grade? Hint: It’s not the liberal media but the GOP’s conservative commentators and editors.

You got to wonder why, Romney failed to talk about the troops? (Public Domain)

Here’s a snapshot:

On the eve of the two-year anniversary of the end of combat operations in Iraq,  the National Security Network joined the Weekly Standard, Council on Foreign Relations, and Duke University sharing their disappointment. NSN Executive Director Heather Hurlburt made the following statement:

“In an almost 45-minute speech Mitt Romney didn’t find one moment to mention Afghanistan, Iraq or the men and women who are serving — though he did take the time to continue the winks and nods at a new war with Iran. Oddly enough, Clint Eastwood had more to say on these topics than the man asking America to trust him with our nation’s security.  After a disastrous trip abroad where Romney insulted his British hosts and worked hard to make Russia back into our Cold War enemy the Soviet Union, Americans are rightly asking how national security would fare under one of the least experienced foreign policy tickets in American history. His campaign says diving into policy details would be “suicidal” in a general election campaign, which raises questions about what those policies are. Last night, Romney failed to lay out a vision for American security in the 21st century; failed to lay out his plan for our troops in Afghanistan; and failed the Commander-In-Chief test.”

Hurlburt was not alone in her thinking.

Bill Kristol, of The Weekly Standard: “What about the civic propriety of a presidential nominee failing to even mention, in his acceptance speech, a war we’re fighting and our young men and women who are fighting it? Has it ever happened that we’ve been at war and a presidential nominee has ignored, in this kind of major and formal speech, the war and our warriors? ”

Charles Kupchan, of the Council on Foreign Relations and Georgetown University and Bruce Jentleson, of Duke University: “Whereas President Barack Obama has claimed the middle ground and crafted a strategy based on principled pragmatism, Romney is following in the footsteps of George W. Bush, relying more on bluster than strategy and veering to ideological extremes…It’s not just Romney’s positions on particular issues, however vague they may be, that are cause for concern.  It’s his core world view. Guided by a Republican Party virtually devoid of moderate centrists, Romney has embraced a global assessment distorted by ideological excess, pledged to wield power in a way that will leave the nation weakened and isolated, and demonstrated a failure to appreciate the key linkages between strength at home and influence abroad.”

James Lindsay, Council on Foreign Relations: “Foreign policy was a side note in Romney’s acceptance speech, coming late in his remarks and taking up only slightly more than one hundred words in a four-thousand-word address.”

So now the ball is in President Obama’s court. You think he is going to miss an opportunity to talk about the troops and reminding us the world is better off today with Osama bin Laden not walking on the planet?

Maybe Romney’s speech writers need to hire Eastwood. His impromptu speech upstaged Romney and it didn’t have to be that way.

Expect Eastwood to get some write-in votes.