Times Editorial
Foreign policy naivete shows in GOP debate
Tuesday, November 15, 2011 
The simplistic hawkish approach to foreign affairs by the Republican candidates for president reflects a lack of sophistication and thoughtfulness about the nation's role in the world. Too many of them indicated during Saturday night's debate that they would be willing to engage the American military against Iran and embrace the use of waterboarding against terror suspects. After two wars that have strained the armed forces and a healthy debate over the use of torture during the Bush era, the Republicans too often sounded off-key and out of touch with reality.
The lively debate, moderated by Scott Pelley of CBS News and Major Garrett of the National Journal, suggested the frontrunners are irresponsible or ill-informed. Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich would commit U.S. troops to military action in Iran if other strategies such as sanctions and covert disruptions did not deter the country from obtaining nuclear weapons. Romney agreed that it is worth going to war with Iran to prevent a nuclear Iran.
Beyond the clear stances of Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul, 
the candidates seemed to have little appreciation for just how war-weary Americans are after more than 10 years in Afghanistan and nearly as long in Iraq. The puffed-up saber rattling of Romney and Gingrich dismissed the trillions of dollars that modern warfare costs and the thousands of American lives put at risk.<...>
Foreign policy often takes a back seat in campaigns for president, particularly when the economy is anemic and unemployment remains the top issue. Yet foreign policy consumes much of any president's time, and the world is more complicated than ever. 
Saturday night's debate reinforced how much the Republican front-runners have to learn, and how voters will have to hold them accountable for their eagerness to go to war and torture enemies.Read more: 
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/foreign-policy-naivete-shows-in-gop-debate/1201712