You would not know it from the GOP debates so far, but the next president of the United States will also be the next leader of the free world. At the recent CNN debate, the candidates spent more time debating Gardasil than national security. This is unacceptable. Voters are understandably focused on jobs right now, but the last five presidents (three Republicans and two Democrats) have deployed U.S. forces in crises and conflicts they did not anticipate before taking office. It is critical that the candidates debate the vital foreign policy issues they would face in the White House.
There is only one way to ensure such a discussion takes place — and that is to hold at least one debate exclusively on national security. I asked the Romney and Perry camps if they would be willing to commit to such a debate. Team Romney was an enthusiastic yes. Chief strategist Stuart Stevens told me he loved the idea, adding: “We welcome the opportunity to discuss and debate critical foreign policy issues with the leading candidates. A format that allowed for longer answers and in-depth discussion would be very productive.” Perry strategist Ray Sullivan told me “We would be open to such a debate, depending on the sponsoring organization and date.”
Marc A. Thiessen
A fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Post.
Archive
Here are some of the foreign policy questions every candidate should have to answer:
Surprise: In the 2000 presidential debates, George W. Bush was never asked about the threat from al-Qaeda. What is the one foreign policy issue you worry about that no one is talking about today?
Iran: Can a nuclear Iran be contained, or do you believe Iran must be stopped from gaining a nuclear weapon? How would you stop it? What would you do if Iran tests a nuclear weapon? Were Israel to take military action to prevent Iran from going nuclear (as it took with Iraq and Syria), would you back Israel?
Israel: How would you respond to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state?
Afghanistan: Do you agree with President Obama’s decision to reject the advice of his military commanders and bring the 30,000 surge forces in Afghanistan home by September 2012? If elected, would you reverse this decision? Would you continue the counterinsurgency strategy put in place by Gen. David Petraeus, or would you move to a more limited counterterrorism mission, as recommended by Vice President Biden?
Iraq: Sixty years after the Korean War, America still has 28,000 troop stationed on the Korean peninsula as a guarantor of stability. Yet President Obama is reportedly reducing the U.S. presence in Iraq to just 3,000 troops by the end of this year — far few than the 15,000 to 18,000 troops requested by the U.S. commander in Iraq. Do you agree with this decision? How would you ensure the gains we made in Iraq are not lost and that Iran does not move in to fill the power vacuum left by U.S. withdrawal?
Pakistan: How would your approach to Pakistan differ from Obama’s? What would you do about the dual role Pakistan plays as a U.S. ally in the war on terror and supporter of Islamist terror groups?
Loading...
Comments