By Arthur I. Cyr
Did the Obama presidential campaign stage-manage Mitt Romney's foreign policy trip to Britain, Israel and Poland? Of course not, but then it didn't have to.
The result was the same as if the Obama team had. The public gaffes and blunders of the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting have been truly stunning.
The Romney visit to Britain was launched in the media by an unnamed adviser who praised "Anglo-Saxon heritage" in an off-the-record interview with a British newspaper. There is in fact a lot to praise about that heritage, which has given us the common-law tradition, trial by jury and also arguably our powerful proclivity for philanthropy beyond the boundaries of business and government.
However, the staffer instead provided media and political critics with an opportunity to attack Romney's camp for elitism, insensitivity and even racism. That is unfair, but who said political campaigns are fair?
Even then, deft sound-bite salvos could have recovered Romney's ground. He should have immediately emphasized his minion meant the Anglo-American "special relationship," also referred to in the interview, vital to victory in World War II and instrumental in creating the United Nations and other international institutions.
President Barack Obama, after visiting London, declared dramatically that the British never used torture during World War II, which is factually wrong. He also abruptly sent back to the British government a bust of Winston Churchill that graced the Oval Office, presented to President George W. Bush by Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Churchill, pivotal in protecting democracy and defeating the Axis in World War II, has recently become a posthumous target of British activists on the loony left, offended by his lack of political correctness. They ironically confirm his importance in leading the coalition that saved freedom, including theirs.
That point and others could have been made by the Romney campaign. Instead, the candidate publicly pummeled the British for problems plaguing the current London Olympics, thus offending many people far removed from the political left. Prime Minister David Cameron rightly retorted with cutting effect.
In Israel, Romney predictably underscored the vital partnership with the United States. Here as well, however, he and his organization could not resist complicating things. His public denigration of Palestinian culture as explanation for that population's economic hardships, delivered before a Jewish audience at a Jerusalem fundraiser, was gratuitous and unfair.
In Poland, Romney was endorsed by Lech Walesa, former president and Nobel Peace Prize winner. As leader of the labor union Solidarity, Walesa was instrumental in ending Soviet domination in his country, and indirectly by example in the rest of Eastern Europe as well.
Romney wisely also visited monuments in Gdansk and Warsaw honoring veterans of World War II and Solidarity, and victims of the Holocaust.
He could easily have added visits with American military personnel to his trip itinerary. Apparently, his corporate-style campaign staff did not even consider that.
To repair the serious damage done on this safari, Romney can regularly note the heroism of the Polish people and others, and emphasize to voters the service of our own military people.
Conventional wisdom holds that foreign policy does not have an important role in presidential campaigns and elections. However, that is an oversimplification.
In recent years, most of the public has viewed Republicans as more effective than Democrats in protecting national security. The Romney campaign retains but now risks squandering this asset.
Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Kenosha, Wis., and author of "After the Cold War." Email acyr@carthage.edu.