Mitt Romney, with the presidential election entering the home stretch, delivered a heavily-promoted foreign policy address in which he called for a larger military that is more robustly deployed in the Middle East and more aggressively postured to check Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Romney slammed President Obama’s Middle East policies on Monday as passively indifferent to the people fighting for democracy, showing no American leadership, and missing an historic opportunity to influence and win friends in the region.

It was the seventh foreign policy speech Romney has given this election season, and comes ahead of the final two presidential debates, both of which are supposed to focus at least in part on foreign policy, an area that few voters claim as most important to choosing a president but where polls and pundits widely give Obama a clear advantage.

On Monday, the New York Times’ David Sanger wrote the latest major news account describing Romney’s national security team as disjointed and uninformed about the candidate’s foreign policy interests or possible governing styles.

Much of Romney’s speech appeared addressed to an audience already attuned to national security differences between Democrats and Republicans, as he left many details unsaid. Yet many of the policies and actions Romney advocated would require a different or greater use of the Pentagon and the military.

For instance, after promising “no flexibility” for Russian President Vladimir Putin -- a hit on Obama for telling then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev last year he would have more flexibility to negotiate the issue after this election -- Romney said he would implement “effective missile defenses to protect against threats.”

President Obama, with the support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, enraged Republicans by shutting down Bush-era plans for missile defense installations in Eastern Europe that Russia had seen as particularly threatening. Instead, the Pentagon is deploying a more modern system of ship- and land-based installations to defense against Iranian missile salvos. Many Republicans continue to oppose the shift.

Romney also called on NATO allies to meet the 2 percent GDP spending commitment. In NATO circles, however, that figure is a forgotten target no European defense ministries, much less parliaments, are seriously entertaining. NATO is deeply involved in “smart defense,” a security-sharing scheme meant to spread defense costs and capability more equitably. Romney has made no mention of the process.

On defense spending, Romney argued, “I’ll roll back President Obama’s deep and arbitrary cuts to our national defense that would devastate our military.” He seemed to be referring to the Budget Control Act and the sequestration penalty, which is an across-the-board cut, both of which are mandated by laws that Congress passed and Obama signed.  And critics have shredded the fact that defense debates still claim Obama has made any “cuts” at all.

“I’ll make the critical defense investments that we need to remain secure,” he said, in a nod to industry, but offered no details.

Romney again waded into the size of the Navy, a longtime Beltway gauge for one’s political support for the military. Romney would not say how many ships the Navy should retain, but after a backhanded reference to 1916’s navy (when the United States had thousands of ships), he pledged to restore the U.S. Navy to “the size needed to fulfill our missions.” He said he wanted “15 ships per year, including three submarines.” Currently the U.S. builds two submarines per year, and to save money to meet the Congressionally-mandated Budget Control Act, the Pentagon this year has asked Congress to delay funding for one of those new submarines by two years.

But Romney gave most attention to the Middle East, where he again called for a stronger military presence and will to use it.

“I’ll put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability,” he said. Romney's stress on denying Iran that capability is different than Obama administration's focus on preventing Iran from acquiring a weapon. The underlying implication is that Romney would be quicker on the military draw, as would Israel, than Obama.

“I’ll restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the gulf. And I’ll work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination,” Romney continued.

Romney also laid blame for the chaos sweeping the Middle East squarely at Obama’s feet. To set up that frame, Romney cited General George C. Marshall’s call for American staying power and leadership in post-World War II Europe. Forecasting the end of American-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Romney launched into a fresh but not new attack on Obama’s approach, which a now-infamous quote characterized as “leading from behind.”

“We led. We led,” Romney repeated, recounting U.S. 20th century history in Europe. He stressed America’s history of “global leadership,” again and again.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki responded to the speech today, saying, “This is Mitt Romney's seventh attempt by our count to reboot his foreign policy.  When you're commander-in-chief you don't get to bring an Etch-a-Sketch into the Oval Office.  You don't get second chances, never mind seventh chances.”

Psaki said Americans should be concerned “that this is somebody who leads with chest-pounding rhetoric.  He's inexperienced.  He's been clumsy at his handling of foreign policy.  And most of all, all of these factors lead to a risk that we're going to go back to the same policies that led us to some of the challenges we faced in the last few years.”

On Iraq and Iran’s influence in the chaos there, Romney claimed, “America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence.” Romney did not mention that it was the Bush administration’s agreement with Baghdad that set the 2011 deadline for the complete U.S. troop withdrawal. Obama tried to extend the presence, he conceded, “but he failed.”

“The president has also failed to lead in Syria,” Romney continued, offering the clearest example of where he would wield U.S. power differently. Romney said the U.S. should arm Syrian rebels. The Pentagon has maintained its offer of only non-lethal aid while the U.S. supports the involvement of other Arab states, namely Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have provided arms.

Romney gave Obama brief credit for finding Osama bin Laden but said that under Obama al Qaeda and violent extremism have spread.

“Drones and modern instruments of war are important tools in our fight, but they are no substitute for a national security strategy for the Middle East,” he said. “The president is fond of saying that the tide of war is receding, and I want to believe him as much as anyone else. But when we look at the Middle East today, with Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons capability, with the conflict in Syria threatening to destabilize the region, and with violent extremists on the march, and with an American ambassador and three others dead likely at the hands of al-Qaida affiliates, it’s clear that the risk of conflict in the region is higher now than when the president took office.”

“Hope is not a strategy,” he added, arguing “the greater tragedy” is the U.S. is missing a “historic opportunity” to win new friends in the Middle East.

“Unfortunately so many of these people who could be our friends feel that our president is indifferent to their quest for freedom and dignity. As one Syrian woman put it, we will not forget that you forgot about us,” Romney said.

“It’s time to change course in the Middle East.”

Before Romney’s address, Obama national security advisors Michele Flournoy, former under secretary of defense, and Colin Kahl, formerly the Pentagon’s Middle East policy chief, issued a statement trying to tie Romney to the previous Republican foreign policy regime.

“Today’s latest effort to reboot and reset the Romney foreign policy doesn’t change the fact that he’s repeatedly taken positions outside of the mainstream and often to the right of even George W. Bush. This isn’t surprising. After all, Romney is advised by the same people who were responsible for some of the worst foreign policy failures in American history, including the Iraq War. And now he wants to take us back to the same with-us-or-against-us approach that got us into wars without getting us out of them.”

On Tuesday, three former Pentagon officials, representing some of President Obama's most-visible defense names during his first term, vigorously defended the administration's Middle East accomplishments and attacked Mitt Romney's criticisms of them.

Former Under Secretary Michele Flournoy, former Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Doug Wilson, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Mideast Affairs Colin Kahl all work for the Obama campaign now -- and each walked their own line between policy and partisanship at a Washington breakfast meeting for reporters.  

Flournoy sounded particularly heated in tossing rhetorical bombs about Romney's recent "bloopers" on Syria and his "distasteful" quick response to the Cairo protests that was "embarrassing for him." That's her current job, as co-chair of the campaign's national security advisors, but it's a marked contrast with the muted, future-defense-secretary tone she maintained while in office.

Wilson was the White House's message man at the Pentagon, so it was less surprising to hear him accuse Romney of proffering "voodoo economics" in calling for 4 percent GDP spending on defense while cutting domestic spending, to include veterans programs.

Kahl picked apart Romney's criticisms and laid out the case for why Obama's approach to the Arab uprisings, and everything since, is the right one. Kahl has emerged from his role as mid-level DOD official to become a front-and-center national security voice for the campaign.

"We know from the secret-tape fundraiser in May, [Romney] was asked about the hostage crisis in Iran and he said, look, I will use these types of events to try to exploit them as we get close to the election," Kahl said. "He's trying to change the subject."

"The problem is he's not only doing it in a way that's -- it's conspicuously trying to politicize things that are very serious, to include the death of our ambassadors. And then when he gets called out on it -- you know, his book is called No Apologies, I think it should maybe be called Incapable of Apologies."

Kahl said, in essence, that there is no one-size fits all approach to the Middle East and that calling for a tougher stance against extremists is hardly a break from President Obama's position.

"The reality is that in all of these places where you see unrest, it's been a minority of a minority who have called for violence against the Americans. It hasn't represented a majority," Kahl said, citing regional leaders who have called for calm. "And in Egypt, where the leadership waffled right off the bat, the president fired a shot across their bow."

Kahl said Obama's comment on September 13 that Egypt is "not an ally" and the ensuing debate missed the point, which he argued is, "We're in a wait-and-see moment about the strategic orientation of the new Egypt."

Of course, that is precisely the criticism of Obama -- the waiting.

Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul offered the E-Ring this response: "The Obama campaign seems desperate to turn the public's attention away from the unraveling of the President's foreign policy. Angry crowds have stormed US embassies in several countries, tens of thousands have been killed by a brutal regime in Syria, Iran continues its march to a nuclear weapons capability, and terrorists have murdered a US ambassador."

"The world is a less safe place today than when President Obama took office and instead of offering a way forward, he is instead engaging in partisan attacks."

Kahl, however, pointed to Obama's Sept. 13 phone conversation with Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, after which Cairo dialed back the protests and ensured safety at the U.S. embassy.

"And by the way, that's how you govern.  You don't govern by, 15 seconds after an event happens, getting your facts wrong and firing before aiming. You govern by making sure you understand the facts right and understanding that appearing tough doesn't mean you actually get good results."

Kahl attacked Romney's criticism of Obama as wanting both more involvement and less across the Arab world. "At the end of the day, their political argument is: Look at this scary place, and if only you had tougher folks like the Republicans in charge, all these fears would go away. But there's no substance to that argument."