UK: Are Americans about to buy a 'pig in a poke'

PJ:  Buyer beware:  are you buying a (in his own words) 'severely conservative' Romney or a moderate centrist that he is now playing?  Will this man lead as a neoconservative saber rattler as he promised to do just months ago or will he seek peace and follow the successful policies of the Obama administration that he claimed to support during the last presidential debate?  He has proven to be a man of opposites who plays to whatever crowd he's trying to woo at the time.  Will that mean that while he is trying to sound moderate now, he will play to the tea party in Congress?  Will he  go to war with Iran because neoconservatives who control Congress and Netanyahu want him to do so...after all, he already said, "there should be no daylight between Israel and the US"?

The Economist

The foreign-policy debate

Neoconservatism goes underground 

Does this indicate that Mr Romney would, as president, be less confrontational abroad than he sounded in his campaign for the Republican nomination? If he continues to follow Bill Kristol's advice on foreign policy most of the time, I doubt it. We know what Mr Kristol's foreign policy looks like. On Iran: "It’s long since been time for the United States to speak to this regime in the language it understands—force." On Syria: "(T)he United States—working with European allies, Turkey, and other regional partners—should advance a new strategy that uses combined airpower to impose a safe zone in northern Syria." On Afghanistan: "(T)o say we're ending our war on schedule means we're not fighting our war to win." This is the neoconservative foreign-policy prescription. It hasn't changed just because they've recognised that their candidate needs to appear conciliatory and say the word "peace" a lot in order to get elected.

Read it at The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/10/foreign-policy-debate