Foreign policy is tricky business.

Even a president with experience can find himself in a pickle just by dumb luck.

On Monday at the Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Va., in the latest chapter of the 2012 presidential campaign, Republican Mitt Romney took President Obama to task for perceived failures abroad.

Romney painted a picture of how Obama has come up short in just about every area of foreign policy.

The Sept. 11 incident in Libya in which a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed was mentioned by Romney as an Obama foreign policy blunder and in hindsight the Obama administration could have handled the incident better. Initially the administration was not on the same page about whether the massacre was the work of an angry mob upset at an anti-Muslim movie or terrorists carrying out a well-planned assault.

Now, weeks later, it appears the attack was planned by terrorists to coincide with the anniversary of 9-11 and the U.S. should have done a better job of beefing up security at the consulate that was targeted.

Then there’s Syria and the brutal civil war there. Romney says Obama has failed to adequately support the rebels fighting the Assad regime.

Romney even mentioned Iraq and how the pullout of U.S. forces there left our nation without an important base of operations in the region and he claimed this has destabilized the country once ruled by Saddam Hussein.

The candidate made no mention of the 16,000 American contractors — most of them armed security forces — still on the ground in Iraq.

From Afghanistan to Israel to Egypt Romney said Obama is out of his league when it comes to dealing with America’s friends and enemies abroad.

Romney didn’t highlight what might be Obama’s biggest foreign policy blunder — failing to support the Iranian people when they held massive protests against the regime of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over allegedly rigged election results three years ago. It may have been a missed opportunity for Obama to foster regime change in a country that continues its anti-Western and Israeli rhetoric.

Romney also didn’t give much praise to Obama for one of the greatest highlights and most historic moments of his presidency, when he sent in the Navy SEALs to carry out a raid that resulted in the death of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

The unrest in the Middle East has posed a challenge for the Obama administration and the same would likely be true of any commander-in-chief.

Could the president be more consistent with how he’s handled the strife in places like Egypt, Syria and Libya. The answer is likely yes, but the complexities in those countries defy simple solutions.

When Obama authorized military support so that the rebel forces in Libya could overthrow Maummar Gaddafi, a dictator with a history of supporting terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of Americans, Republicans criticized him for it.

Action or inaction seem to bring equal rancor from Obama’s political opponents.

And while Romney might talk a good game on foreign policy, his recent trip abroad showcased his inexperience. During Romney’s weeklong summer trip to Europe and the Middle East he spouted off about the lack of security at the Summer Olympics in Britain, angering the Brits in the process, and then ticked off Palestinians with comments that their culture was keeping them from being more successful.

The foreign policy game is difficult and often unpredictable.

To paint Obama as a failure on the foreign policy front smacks of armchair quarterbacking from the former Massachusetts governor.

If Romney wins in November, he will probably find that the job of president is tougher than it looks—especially when it comes to U.S. relations with the rest of the world.

Like with most things, it’s easier to cast aspersions from the sidelines than it is to make the calls.

Experience doesn’t come from second-guessing.