In both Democratic and Republican debates thus far, some candidates have already given impressive and eloquent monologues on key issues. I call these West Wing (1999-2006)moments. These distinctive scenes are inspired by the words of President Josiah Bartlet himself, who, in the series’ fourth season, spars for re-election. In private conversation with his opponent, the New Hampshire Democrat remarks that “we should have a great debate … We owe it to everyone.” His fictional assertion holds true today as Democratic and Republican fields begin to shrink. A frank foreign policy debate is still overdue.
Both fields of candidates have not had a great debate on foreign policy. Some blame lies on the Trump and Carson campaigns. Especially after the awkward Fox-Wall Steet Journal moderating, networks are clearly at fault as well.
Out of self-interest and principle, the candidates should give the American people a sustained opportunity to better understand their perceptions and policies. Here are key foreign policy questions glossed over by moderators thus far:
- Many of you have said, repeatedly, that your foreign policy would be fundamentally different from that of the Obama administration. One key point of contention is the question of whether America should promote its values externally. Would your foreign policy be rooted in advancing American-style democracy abroad?
Truly challenging questions should start here, at the foundation -- whether candidates take the conventional line or a more realist, or isolationist, approach. This will inform a great many of their decisions on a variety of issues -- namely entanglement abroad and foreign aid.- Aside from Iran, name one alliance the United States should re-evaluate, and why.
Responses to this question give the electorate a chance to distinguish more thoughtful, polished doctrines from those posed by Trump and Carson. Candidates will be forced to explain their choices and, in doing so, they will reveal their views on certain problematic diplomatic relationships.- Egypt and Saudi Arabia are two notable and controversial American allies in the Middle East. As president, how would you respond to Egyptian and Saudi requests for more aid or greater support?
Much like the first question, this poses a doctrinal challenge to each candidate. Their answers to this question would be telling on two levels. First, comparing this series of responses to those of the first question will show how cohesive each doctrine would be. Second, it yet again tests candidates' level of polished, nuanced knowledge of the issues. In the Egyptian case, since President Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi’s ascent to power, many American leaders have called for expanded support while skirting the implications of supporting a repressive leader. Historically, previous administrations -- Democrat and Republican alike -- have supported dictators like Sadat in Egypt and the Shah in Iran, with mixed results at best. And bringing up the Saudi case helps shift the conversation to the issue of energy, another key facet of any strong, coherent foreign policy doctrine.- Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized for “some of the mistakes” made during the 2003 Iraq invasion and occupation. With this controversial decision behind us, how would you define your criteria for going to war and concluding a military campaign? What concrete objectives indicate success and failure in war?
Challenging the candidates to provide concise overviews of quantifiable objectives in deciding to go to war and waging war again with this broad question would help test for nuance. Under Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama, American foreign policy has suffered from mission creep -- widening military campaigns beyond an original set of goals, often leading to prolonged, unsustainable intervention and post-war occupations. Candidates’ answers would speak for themselves. This challenge offers another opportunity for the more knowledgable candidates to shine and for the weaker ones to fall short.
