If one googles the subject of "microeconomic marshall plan" one may discover that Mitts plan has already been written and not by him.

Having a war on terrorism is like having a war on thunderstorms. Pointless.

If we want to promote the rule of law in the Middle East, then we should end the war in Iraq, which is a gross violation of international law and a war crime under the Nuremberg standards. If we are serious about boosting our image in the Mideast, then we have to withdraw support for Israel's brutal occupation of Palestine, and we have to stop supporting repressive regimes (like Saudi Arabia) just because it serves our interests. And I wish the people of the US had all of things that Romney wants for Islamic states, including decent public education and universal access to healthcare.

Rule of law, public schools, basic human rights — that isn't nation-building. I don't see Haliburton anywhere in the equation. What he is advocating isn't the nation destroying and nation building we have been doing but an actual change in direction.

I have to say KUDOS for Mitt. At least he is putting out ideas where others are too busy trying to blame each other for what is going on.

I'd love for someone to explain to me how going into some country, blowing it to smitherines and then building it back up is a "very liberal" ideal. I'd also like someone to explain how social contract theory is conservative (using the modern definitions of liberal and conservative, of course).

Social contract theory is simply used to justify the actions of a government, including the laws that they create and enforce. I would think that conservatives these days would rather just be in the state of nature, where they can just take what they want without regard for other people and shoot anyone who tries to stop them.

Romney will say anything to win the presidency. Yes, even more than many of the other candidates. Please think before believing what he has to say.

"Assemble resources from developed nations"…that means, we have to open the big wallet first, to make a show of commitment, then hope other countries pitch in. We're already spending billions on similar projects, and they still hate us. If they wanted public schools, human rights, micro-credit and banking, for a start, they'd be rioting in the streets for them, not denouncing them as decadent, Western influenced and evil.

We can't force our way of life on them. But we can improve the quality of all our lives, by spending half that amount we would have spent on unappreciative Islamic countries on our own public schools and basic healthcare, and leaving the other half of that sum in the taxpayer's pocket.

As oil rich as many of the "poor" and "third world" countries are, they can easily take care of their own "have nots" themselves.

This new idea is well-intentioned, no doubt, but it sounds a lot like empire to me. Forcing all of these things on people who already hate us won't make the situation any better. Indeed, it will probably just make the situation worse as we feed them pro-America propaganda in through these new programs, yet continue to torture their Muslim brothers in a new, improved, and expanded Gitmo.

This makes very clear that Mitt Romney is a great businessman who has ideas – they're just not ideas that needs to be achieved by the means of government. These things are the provinces of businesses and non-profit organizations.

Romney's more qualified for some private sector initiative than being President, where he is restrained by the Constitutional limits on power.

There is nothing new about Mitt Romney's plan. The concept of nation building is a very old – and a very liberal – policy dating back to Woodrow Wilson; it institutes something far different than a conservative American enterprise.
People don't need to mastermind plans for national institutions. People need to agree in terms of a social contract. That idea is as old – and as conservative – as Locke, and it is something that I feel a lot of Americans still believe in.
It's not nation building, central banking, and entitlements for health care and education that give root to liberty. It's upholding the Constitution, free markets, and the freedom to educate yourself on the choices you make that denote true freedom.
Perhaps Mitt should spend some time on trying to make that work in his own country. He might even find that not intervening in the affairs of other countries would incite less hatred and more swiftly end the war on terror than any Special Partnership Force or Marshall Plan that he could dream up.

Yes, lets keep meddling and wasting money in regions of the world where the people already hate us… that will fix things.

Fighting terror, by fighting poverty and ignorance. Could that work? It seems worth a try…

finally someon with a smart and innovative plan. no more of the same crap. kudos to romney.

he is impressive. he apparently has a more thurough plan than simply attack everybody who thinks of even threatening us until we have outwarred ourselves. he has a long term plan that will defeat the radical jihadist philosophy.

Wow – impressive. Unafraid to take bold new steps to diplomatically resolve the issues without being insensitive or showing weakness. Go Mitt!

You can't force our values upon people that do not want them.

Not to mention the fact many people in the Islamic world dislike America.

We need to ask the questions why first before we can truly make a "new course".

Perhaps if the US showed less favoritism towards Israel and did not start pre-emptive wars against nations that never attacked us…there wouldn't be so much anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world.