Let

Let’s face it. None of the Republican candidates is qualified to direct the country’s foreign relations – with the exception of Jon Huntington and, perhaps, Ron Paul. Their ignorance is matched only by their lack of logical thinking and incoherence. If these presentations were made at a respectable community college, they would get grades ranging from D- - F+ (grade inflation). Some of their weird notion, were they actually implemented, would produce disaster.

How did we sink into such a sump of irresponsibility? The answers are obvious to all of us – even if we remain reluctant to admit them. A self indulgent public isn’t paying attention, has never been schooled in these matters, and therefore does not know how to think about them. The media, whose job it is to help people become informed citizens, are more an obstruction than assist. They treat it all as an American Idol celebrity contest, present at face value whatever nonsense is uttered, and convey the impression that it all really doesn’t matter that much. As for America’s political class, it’s been AWOL for so long it couldn’t find its way back if it tried. As for us, the intellectual wing of the political class, we’re tied into knots by a devotion to the conventional wisdom which we presume (correctly) will prevail no matter what happens in the election. In addition, too many of us are rendered hesitant and inhibited by our own professional and financial interests.

Some of you will take offense at these remarks – and their tone. I respectfully suggest that you rather take offense of what is happening to our country.

Going through the transcript of Wednesday’s debate, I’m baffled that not one of the candidates made even a nod to our veterans – in wartime, just before Veterans’ Day, and in a room full of Republicans. (I can’t find a mention in the last debate, either.) I understand it’s a televised debate with eight participants getting 60 seconds a question, so I didn’t expect profound policy analysis. I understand the debate was focused on the economy, so I didn’t expect a lot of time on veterans’ issues.

But not one word?

Not even a perfunctory reassurance amidst all the talk of cuts that “of course we can’t slash veterans’ benefits”?

So let me offer six sentences of my own. Imagine I’m trying to fit it all in 60 seconds:

1) We still have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq (yes, still) and Afghanistan.

2) More than 53,000 of them have been wounded seriously enough to be reported in the official figures.

3) Some of those wounded will need years of therapy to recover. Some never will.

4) A parent with untreated post-traumatic stress disorder inevitably affects his or her children, possibly for life.

5) And even if you escape all of the above, the unemployment rate is a lot worse for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan than for the general population. (Surely that’s an economic issue?)

6) But veterans who do come back, get educated on the G.I. Bill, and get jobs have historically paid us back many times over in their contribution to the economy.

(I’ve written more about all these points, especially here; see here for more).

I understand the theme of this campaign is all about cutting government spending. But surely we can agree across party lines that we do owe something to our troops, our veterans, and their families.

-- Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

www.LearningFromVeterans.com

What? We're not good enough for the multitude here to debate us? I know many of you. What's the matter, afraid?

What we will hear in this debate is a contest among the candidates for expression of the most fulsome possible devotion to Israel, its welfare and happiness. As an auxiliary devotion, desire will be expressed for more money, force structure and primacy to be given to Defense within the US Government. More and better wars will be suggested as desirable. The contemptible Palestinians will be described as mad in that they wish to exceed the wishes of the Israelo/American controllers of the "peace process." The UN will be suitably scorned for accepting the concept of Palestinian statehood on a schedule not vetted by the Likud. It will be proposed that massive defunding of international UN agencies like ICAO, IAEA, WHO , etc. occur. Proposals will be made for expulsion of UN facilities and diplomats from the US.

Ron Paul will not accept much of that, but, no matter.

You think that there should be other policies debated? Well, think what you like.

As one presidential campaign has replaced another over the years, it has become pretty clear to me why the period preceeding such elections has become known in many quarters as the political "silly season." This time of frantic jockeying for position is not one in which candidates typically market particularly profound views on our various challenges abroad. In fact, more often than not, candidates are given to bold posturing rather than cogent, workable proposals--rhetoric that often complicates more serious efforts to formulate positions later when they become their party's nominee or succeed in reaching the White House.

Eric Farnsworth perhaps is closest to the mark in urging that candidates be pressed for answers to questions that might prove more revealing as to the manner in which they would tackle various international issues: how they might set limits on US overseas policy in an era of increasing domestic austerity; to what degree are they willing to cooperate with our allies and deal with various other groupings of powers abroad; how do they view the American role in a world in which US dominance increasingly is subject to challenge in a variety of ways; what are the most pressing threats to American security; are they capable of entertaining alternative views regarding policies toward countries or issues that have been gridlocked for years--in some cases decades; and, finally, what level of priority do they see themselves assigning foreign policy issues overall with such a full domestic plate?

Questions on more specific foreign policy issues most likely will elicit rather stark utterances that will reveal more about what constituency within the American electorate contenders are aiming to capture as opposed to what would happen should they ever have to actually grapple with the realities of overseas policies as President of the United States. In the Middle East, for example, specific questions about Iran or the Israeli-Palestinian impasse probably would produce little more than the toughest knee-jerk declarations of "standing up" to Iran and emotive professions of unconditional support for Israel. Trying to extract intent concerning the Aghanistan/Pakistan theater cannot be expected to generate much more than thumping assertions of determination to support our troops, not any especially useful insights into how that is to be achieved given the many difficult--often conflicting--challenges this complex conflict poses. The bottom line for most contenders is that when in doubt, look "strong," so typically presidential campaigns produce tough, simplistic rhetoric designed more to shape the candidate's public profile than to demonstrate any particularly insightful views related to overseas priorities.

And then, of course, at this stage of the game, there are still what I suppose could be called niche market candidates like Ron Paul who seeks simply to walk away from quite a few overseas obligations (which sounds just fine to many Americans suffering through the worst economic times since the Great Depression). And such proposals can stimulate some useful out of the box thinking about what is and is not truly vital to US interests, but as a whole such an approach is highly unlikely to gain any real traction across the political spectrum (or represent an overarching solution to the challenges of today's world).

So while there are some useful questions that can be posed as the campaign steadily picks up speed toward the first Republican primaries, there is little reason to heighten expectations at this point about what the answers will reveal about a candidate's foreign policy toward more specific issues nine months from now in the final stretch of a presidential campaign--let alone in late January 2013.

American foreign policy’s overriding need is a coherent strategy. We have been drifting with the impetus provided by the amorphous ‘war on terror’ while making tactical shifts as dictated by the convergence of electoral pressures and the exigencies of an unyielding external environment. The United States leaders know not where they are headed or why. The challenge for aspirants to the White House is to provide at least an outline of such a strategy. They like Barack Obama, however, are manifestly incapable of doing so. They possess neither the requisite aptitude, the experience nor the sense of urgency. Nor do their batteries of foreign affairs advisers serve as anything more than as a source of sound bites that will not make them look even less informed and concerned than they in fact are. So asking them to design a strategy is pointless.

Instead, we may consider asking them some questions about concrete matters that could perhaps grab their attention, and to responses which could perhaps give some small indication as to their leanings. Here are my candidate questions:

How do you define success in Afghanistan?

2. What if anything should the United States do about the brutal suppression of democracy demonstrators in Bahrain with Saudi backing? Why?

3. What fate for the Palestinians is acceptable to the United States?

4. What is your view as to the most suitable arrangements for working with other rich nations in dealing with the world’s dangerously fragile financial system?

5. If an open world economy is contributing to the relative impoverishment of American salaried workers, what should we do about it?

6. Do you think that the ‘war on drugs’ starts at home? If so, how do go about fighting it?

7. Name two or three people (preferably living), not now on your payroll or part of your entourage, whom you believe could help you answer these questions.

8. Can you think and use chopsticks at the same time?

The debate must get beyond Afghanistan and Iraq to be of any real utility. Why? Not because these are unimportant issues, obviously, but because each candidate already has their stock, poll-tested answers on these questions and anything they say will have been repeatedly rehearsed and unrevealing. At the same time, there should be little room for gotcha questions in a serious debate.

Rather, the moderators should focus on open ended questions that will reveal the candidates instincts as to how they would propose to deal with the issues that confront us. Circumstances change, personal instincts in dealing with crises generally do not. What will be their priorities? Will they act unilaterally or not? Do we/should we care what the United Nations says or does? What are the primary threats that will face the United States during your time as president and how do we address them? When is the right time to use force? Are you prepared to deal with a major cyber attack? How should we envision the relationship with China evolving, and what should be our endgame? What would you propose to do should Iran go nuclear? What role will you propose for Congress in the foreign policy realm?

And here's a question that likely won't get asked, but would be revealing because none of the candidates will have given much thought to hemispheric issues beyond, perhaps, immigration and Cuba. To wit: next April, the President will attend the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, with all his hemispheric counterparts except Cuba's Raul Castro. What should he tell them?

In an age of globalization and austerity -- where there is no distinction between international and domestic, and there is no money to be spent -- the discussion of creative approaches to foreign policy and national security has been underwhelming. Some questions for the Republican candidates:

• Because every situation is different, what timeless principles inform your decision-making?
• What is your understanding of this global century, and your vision for America's contribution to it? What does success look like in the 22nd century?
• What is your definition of grand strategy? How does it account for a "Track 1.5" approach where governments (Track 1) and civil society organizations (Track 2) work together to tackle common challenges?
• What is the difference between security and defense? What does "power projection" mean to you?
• In a world where 85% of the world's 7 billion people believe in something greater than themselves, how should religion be engaged globally? If it has been a part of the problem, can it be a part of the solution?
• Middle East/North Africa and key regions in Asia are (quickly) shedding their old stability paradigms; what role should America play in developing a new security framework with these regions?
• What is the future of NATO when America shoulders most of its military and financial burdens?
• What is your plan for partnership in Africa and Latin America?
• Do we need a new national security act that would streamline missions while establishing a government-wide education and training program that, as a requirement for promotion, would enable a better understanding of global affairs for our senior civil servants while, over time, creating a common culture across governmental agencies, improving cohesion and coordination as a result (just as the Congress did with our military services in 1986, requiring "joint" education for those seeking promotion)?
• What experience do you bring that helps you answer these questions?