What policy differences?

Opinion: August 6, 2012 at 12:00a.m.

Chicago Tribune: During the first two stops on his foreign tour, Mitt Romney antagonized Britons, pleased Israelis and then infuriated Palestinians. But it doesn’t really matter that much, since none of them will be voting in the American presidential election.

Though the trip didn’t go according to script, it’s easy to exaggerate the tangible significance of what happened — just as it’s easy to magnify the differences between Romney and his opponent.

On all sorts of foreign policy issues, of course, Romney depicts himself as stronger and more resolute. It’s a familiar Republican theme, going back at least to the Vietnam War, but it’s not so easy to deploy against President Barack Obama, who has not shied away from military action.

Obama, after all, approved the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. He has greatly expanded the use of drone missiles to hit terrorists in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

Among some liberals, the criticism is that Obama has not made a sharp break with George W. Bush on Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror. And they have a point.

Historically, presidential candidates from the party out of power promise big changes in foreign policy — but once in office, they usually opt for modest changes or outright continuity.

Bill Clinton criticized President George H.W. Bush for refusing to apply trade sanctions to pressure China on human rights but reversed himself in office. George W. Bush faulted Clinton for overextending the American military and then invaded Iraq as well as Afghanistan. Most new presidents find their predecessors were wiser than they imagined.