Behind The Times

Kari Travis | Managing Editor

Foreign policy pulled no punches during the final debate of the U.S. presidential race.

Funny thing, seeing as all things foreign weren't originally expected to have much influence over voters' decisions. (Turns out the economy has been the No. 1 issue thus far, according to CNN.)

This, however, hasn't stopped both candidates from spinning in every direction, trying to diffuse disputes and doubts about who has the stronger world leadership skills. But at the end of the day, we watch the tailspin that is presidential foreign policy and try to figure out where each candidate actually stands on world issues.

So let's dig into the issue, open the record books and hit the factual highlights.

Obviously, there's a lot going on in the world. Between Syria, Pakistan, Libya, Afghanistan, China, Iran and Israel, it's hard to know where to begin.

Wait, nope. Just kidding. Let's start by talking about a theme of the most recent debate. A theme that sounded a lot like a pitch for a Nobel Prize. Or a Miss America crown.

Peace. World peace.

Which in the case of both Romney and Obama, looks a lot like America withdrawing from its influence in the Middle East, according to former Assistant Secretary of State James Rubin.

"The candidates we saw on the stage last night were talking about America receding from the world - ending the war in Iraq, ending the war in Afghanistan," Rubin said in a post-debate report from CNN. "They said the same things that were said about Iraq and Afghanistan when we were at the height of our interest in Iran and Afghanistan."

The appearance of inter- national non-interference in both presidential platforms begs questions about how conflicts, such as those in Syria, will be handled.

Robert Kagan, a former advisor to both Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton, points to the current lack of involvement in the Syrian civil war as a roadmap to future dealings by the U.S., according to CNN.

A roadmap that looks the same regardless of which candidate gets into office.

That's not to say that no action is the right action, according to Kagan. The foreign policy expert says there are only two choices for dealing with Syria, and neither one of them is pretty. One of these is a long and bloody civil war where the U.S. is not involved. The other is a shorter civil war where the U.S. pitches in to help tip over the Syrian government's regime. Neither of these options encompass the ideal solution, but then again, foreign policy usually involves making decisions out of necessity, not preference.

The bottom line of the debate points to which candidate carries the most qualified presence in world politics. Throughout the campaign, Obama has staked his claim to foreign affairs leadership on his record.

His resume includes the claim to ending the war in Iraq, drawing troops out of Afghanistan and killing Osama bin Laden, according to The New York Times.

Some pretty impressive credentials, to be sure.

Romney, on the other hand, has a record strongly backed by his management abilities. The Republican candidate is viewed by voters as the stronger leader, with the ability to enforce and carry through in the decision making process, according to a CBS News poll.

But confusion continues as voters are faced with the reality that, although the tones of the two foreign policy approaches are distinct, ( just listen to their banter from all three presidential debates if you don't believe it), the outcomes of the most crucial issues are very similar, according to New York Times columnist Michael D. Shear.

And when it comes time to vote, the influence of foreign policy on the ballot will likely boil down to how well each candidate is able to help voters connect the welfare of the American economy with the force of world events.

"Domestic policy is foreign policy," Rubin said. "After the Iraq War, the financial crisis, let's face it, America's ability to be what President Obama called 'the indispensable nation' has been put in jeopardy. And to be 'the indispensable nation,' we need both - we need to be strong at home and a strength abroad."

In other words, foreign policy isn't so foreign after all.