Though Romney’s proposed military buildup won’t make the United States look any better in the eyes of some of our international peers, emphasizing the Middle East as our foremost foreign focus will help put the nation back on track to military and economic security.

Particularly in the last decade, many Middle Eastern countries have adopted severely anti-Western dispositions. Internal strife has only made this worse: The Arab Spring, Iran’s nuclear program and unrest in Syria and Libya have put these countries on a global stage, making their unrest all the more dangerous.

As an example, Romney began his speech citing the nearly two dozen cases of anti-American violence last month — including the deaths of a U.S. Ambassador and three veterans in Benghazi, Libya — to illustrate just how dire the current situation is in the Middle East. And he’s right to do so: In terms of other foreign policy concerns, China is a looming economic threat, but they aren’t being openly hostile. The attacks in the Middle East are frequent enough that they don’t constitute random acts of violence. They are examples of organized terrorism directed at the United States, and with the election looming so close, both candidates should be clearly explaining how they plan to respond to these issues.

That’s not to say Romney’s plans are 100 percent on the right track. He plans to increase the size of the Navy, bolster security spending among NATO members with an additional 2 percent of gross domestic product and expand our presence in several Middle Eastern countries over the next couple years. All this can only drag the conflict on. But at least it’s a decisive action plan compared to what we’ve seen from President Barack Obama, who, after four years, still hasn’t delivered on his commitment to remove American soldiers from overseas. America certainly doesn’t need any more spending right now, and Romney has already committed to a deficit-neutral budget if he takes office. A plan to address the Middle East while subduing the national deficit covers two of America’s most pressing issues and could put the country back on a path to prosperity.

But in light of past administrations’ handling of foreign policy, Romney might have the right idea. Increasing military spending and presence is always a risky move — it could have the result of alienating countries that see the United States as a threat and further souring American sentiments toward military spending. But part of the reason is because this strategy hasn’t been successfully implemented. Former President George W. Bush’s administration botched the early years of war in the Middle East with unclear goals and questionable motives, while the Obama administration has made minimal progress. I don’t support a direct increase in military power, but I also don’t know everything about foreign affairs — a new, decisive leader could be just what America needs to wrap things up once and for all.

Romney wants to return the United States to its former position as a “global leader.” And though the strategy for doing so is up for debate, it’s tough to argue that Romney’s plan won’t make it a reality. We are in an extremely fragile situation with the Middle East, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to remove ourselves from their affairs.

Romney’s foreign policy strategy isn’t guaranteed to work, but it acknowledges a truth Obama has ignored: If we don’t find a solution to resolve anti-Western sentiments soon, we will only exacerbate the problem and cause further issues for America down the road. Romney promises to put the nation on a road to “freedom, peace and prosperity” — voters need to keep this goal in mind and support the best plan of action to get us there.

Burke Gibson is a sophomore majoring in economics and is the Daily Trojan’s chief copy editor.

Point/Counterpoint runs Fridays.