“The third and final presidential debate of the 2012 campaign is to be devoted solely to matters of foreign policy. This is an anachronism, one that reflects neither the world we live in nor what constitutes the Achilles’ heel of American security,” writes CFR’s Richard Haass. (Politico)

Presidential debate: 7 foreign policy questions that should be asked … and probably won’t. (Washington Post

“It sounded weeks ago like a mismatch. The final presidential debate would focus on foreign policy — a sitting president who’d overseen the death of Osama bin Laden pitted against a one-term governor, so new to diplomatic thinking that he’d managed to offend a good chunk of Britain during a brief trip this summer.” (Washington Post)

“Debates shaped the Republican presidential field during the fall of 2011 and played a critical role in determining the outcome of that contest last winter. Ask Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum about that. The general election debates have shaken up the race and last week provided the most confrontational encounter of the modern era of presidential politics. Monday’s final debate could help decide who wins the election two weeks from Tuesday.” (Washington Post)

Brookings’ E.J. Dionne: Obama’s not-so-hidden second-term agenda. (Washington Post)

Cato’s Trevor Burrus: Have faith in the American voter. (New York Daily News)

“If Barack Obama is defeated, the irresistible comparison will be to Jimmy Carter. A president was rejected for a second term after pursuing big-government programs amid high energy prices and attacks on America in the Middle East. Actually, that’s not entirely fair to Carter. His budget deficits were minuscule next to Obama’s, and in response to the Soviet attack on Afghanistan he began the defense buildup that Ronald Reagan accelerated,” writes AEI’s Michael Barone. (National Review)

Heritage’s James Carafano: War in a narrow place. (Washington Examiner)

Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas: The cost of rebuilding the WTC to Port Authority. (New York Post)