I'm not buying it; neither are Greg Scoblete and Chris Preble (as highlighted at Scoblete's compass blog at RCW, here. Why not? Simple - because of the neocon posse with which Romney has surrounded himself. As Scoblete notes:
One reason that Romney has surrounded himself with pro-Iraq war neocons is because that's largely the GOP policy-making bench these days. While the American people writ large have a dim view of the Iraq war, there are plenty of people in Washington's foreign policy establishment that think it was a great idea, if poorly executed.
That means that, no matter the rhetoric of vote-seeking Romney, the policy proposals generated by a Romney administration are going to be made by the same people who thought invading, occupying and spending $1 trillion on Iraq was a brilliant strategic gambit.
I'm also not convinced that Romney's brain has ever entertained a thought on foreign policy that wasn't inserted directly by someone else. And the fact that he and Bibi are such good buds and old school chums worries me even more on that score in the eventuality that Romney gets elected.
The point has been made by many, and often: Mitt is a creature of market testing. His "people" surely made it clear to him before Monday night's debate that (1) the voting public want no more wars for the time being (a point that David Ignatius made today) and (2) there was no way that Romney was going to either kayo or outpoint Obama with both men wearing the commander-in-chief gloves. Al Sharpton put it well (lkewise in boxing terms) on MSNBC after the debate: Romney's tactics were to clinch and hold. That allowed him to stay in the ring with Obama without getting hurt. Of course, he landed no telling blows either; but he didn't need to, having piled up lots of points in the first round/debate.
Let's face it: Mitt's advisers now how to work the referees - they being the American public.