Romney’s a novice on foreign policy.

Romney fashions himself a new Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan — but he’s really an out-of-his-depth foreign policy pretender

Mitt Romney heads into Monday ’s final debate on foreign policy and national security facing serious doubts about his ability to be the next commander-in-chief.

The reason for these doubts: His bombastic rhetoric masks a thin policy agenda cooked up by a team of advisers who, when they were in power, helped undermine America’s power and credibility around the world.

Rhetorically, Romney presents himself as the reincarnation of Theodore Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan — as a strong, proud, principled leader in a turbulent world. He contrasts this with a ridiculous caricature of President Obama as a shrinking Jimmy Carter clone with muddled ideas and a shaky belief in America.

This cartoon script is little more than a ploy to divert voters’ attention from the reality that Romney's foreign policy is an empty shell lacking a solid inner core. The closer you look beneath the rhetoric, the less you see.

On substance, Romney offers no specific alternative to the tough internationalism of the Obama administration. On the rare occasions when Romney has come up with thoughtful positions on foreign policy, like Egypt and development assistance, they sound little different from Obama’s, only layered with a thin veneer of hyped up speechifying that criticizes the President for being “weak.”

On personnel, we get another image: of continuing the tradition of George W. Bush. His foreign policy advisors have come right off Bush's bench — including the folks who brought us the invasion of Iraq and the dangerous diversion of resources away from going after the terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11.

Add it all up, and what emerges is a portrait of a shaky leader lacking sound judgment on how he would go about a President’s most important responsibility: keeping America safe. Though in policies and plans, Romney offers nothing to distinguish himself from the President, in tenor and tone, he carries a neoconservative shtick.

Let’s start with language.

Whether he talks about Middle East security or trade with China, Romney’s instinct is to shout louder, rattle a bigger saber or hint that he would start more wars. His idea of projecting strength is to talk like a frat boy spoiling for a bar fight.

Romney’s first major foreign policy speech of the campaign, delivered just over a year ago at the Citadel, sounded like it was pulled from a 2002-2004 Republican political playbook — heavy on grandstanding and vague cheerleading about America’s leadership role in the world but light on specifics on what he would actually do. In that speech, Romney boldly declared, “as President of the United States, I will devote myself to an American Century. And I will never, ever apologize for America.”

And then he not so boldly failed to outline i n specifics what he would do to advance his vision. This speech set the template for the rest of his campaign.

Romney's cringe-inducing statement that Russia was “without question, our number one geopolitical foe” prompted former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a fellow Republican to say, “Come on, Mitt, think. That isn’t the case.”

Romney’s overseas trip this past summer to the United Kingdom, Israel and Poland was characterized by a string of gaffes. He offended America’s closest ally Britain with inartful statements on that nation’s summer Olympics preparations.

When in Israel, Romney repeated his attempts to make U.S. support for Israel a partisan wedge issue — a risky campaign t act ic that cuts against the grain of decades of strong, unified bipartisan support for our key ally in the Middle East. This tactic didn’t work in large part because Israel’s leaders repeatedly reaffirmed that U.S. backing for their country’s security has been stronger than ever under Obama.

Romney's flip-flopping on a twostate solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is almost dizzying. Earlier this spring at a private fundraiser when he made his infamous “47%” remark, Romney trashed the idea. In his speech at the Virginia Military Institute last month, Romney effectively rebuked himself by calling for a two-state solution.

This fall, Romney’s handling of the terrorist assault in Libya revealed him as eager to divide the country at a time when unity was needed. Just hours after our ambassador and three other Americans were killed, Romney hastily organized a press conference to launch a rhetorical attack on Obama.

He criticized U.S. diplomats in the Middle East at the same moment they were facing threats and protests outside of U.S. embassies — prompting members of Romney’s party to openly condemn his judgment and lack of poise.

But rhetoric isn’t everything. Next comes policy: What kinds of ideas has Romney actually offered?

Romney’s foreign policy vision is about as clear as his economic and debt reduction plans, where the numbers don’t add up.

In most areas, his heated rhetorical attacks on Obama mask the fact that the would-be commander-inchief offers no clear alternative to Obama on key foreign policy issues, including Iran, Afghanistan and Syria.

In other realms, he’s hawkish through and through. After defeating his primary opponents and capturing the nomination in the spring, many observers expected that Romney would tack towards the center on foreign policy and defense. He didn’t.

Last week, Sen. Marco Rubio (RFla.) openly disagreed with Romney’s swaggering proposal to declare China a currency manipulator on his first day in office, saying, “It could kick off a trade war that would be bad for the economy. I agree with Obama on that one.”

But the biggest red flag for voters looking for sound judgment is Romney ’s proposal to increase defense spending by $2 trillion over the next 10 years. This idea is completely devoid of strategic direction and disconnected from national security priorities. It has not been requested by the Pentagon.

And it is actually opposed by a majority of Republicans: A recent Chicago Council on Foreign Relations poll found that 54% of Republicans favor cuts in defense spending.

Romney’s defense proposal contrasts markedly and unfavorably with Obama's plan to tie $489 billion in mandated defense cuts to a plan framed by two Obama requirements: that defense spending be tied to strategic priorities to meet all of the nation’s planned and unanticipated national security needs, and that America’s military remain the

best and strongest in the world.

Finally, look at the people he trusts.

Anyone in the international affairs business knows that the people you choose for key roles are often what define your relationships with allies and enemies. And Romney’s surrounded himself with neoconservatives from the Bush administration whose instincts are to jettison nuance and use force far more often than is wise or necessary.

One of his closest advisors on the campaign is Dan Senor, whose main foreign policy experience was to spin the media and disguise the disaster that was unfolding in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 as chief spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority there.

Joh n Bolton, a former UN ambassador, and Eliot Cohen, former counselor and senior advisor at the State Department, are also part of the Romney team. Both were in senior leadership positions in the Bush administration as it sunk America’s power and prestige around the world to new lows.

And this team argues for a return to some of the same approaches they tried and failed under Bush: Their policy proposals on Iran sound strikingly similar to what they advocated on Iraq a decade ago. In 2009, Cohen wrote i n the Wall Street Journal that on Iran, “the choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time. … it is, therefore, i n the American interest to break with past policy and actively seek the overthrow of the Islamic Republic.”

Romney entered the race with a rare challenge for a Republican: He faced an uphill battle against a Democrat on foreign policy. After

Look at his rhetoric, his policies and his advisers. It doesn’t add up.

all, Obama has killed Osama Bin Laden, inflicted serious damage on the Al Qaeda network i n Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and beyond, and ended the war in Iraq. Obama restored trust and credibility to America’s tattered partnerships and imposed the strongest and most effective global sanctions against Iran ever implemented.

But it is Romney’s steady string of unforced errors on foreign policy that has left many Americans, including leading Republican voices on national security, doubting whether he meets the leadership threshold test. Romney had several opportunities this summer and fall to present a more credible and pragmatic plan for leading in the world. He missed them all.

Even though foreign policy ranks lower on the list of prior ities in polls than jobs, health care and social values issues, it could tip the balance in this race, serving as a proxy for the overall leadership qualities of the two candidates.

Tomorrow’s debate is the last chance Romney has to turn things around on his erratic approach to leading in the world before the election. The track record he has established is not promising.

Katulis is a senior fellow for national security at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and an advisor to President Obama's reelection campaign on