All things considered, there was ample discussion of critical national security issues during the third and final 90-minute debate of this heated and often nasty U.S. presidential campaign. Whereas Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton provided some specifics on a number of these issues, Republican nominee Donald Trump mostly criticized past and current efforts without elaborating on what he might do different if he were Commander-in-Chief.
The Cipher Brief once again asked our five network contributors—former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden, former U.S. Ambassador James Jeffrey, retired General Jack Keane, former CIA officer John Sipher, and retired Lieutenant General Guy Swan—to assess the candidates’ responses.
The Cipher Brief: There was more discussion on Russia, nuclear weapons, the Mideast, U.S. alliances, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Did you hear any further elaboration on those issues that represents a clearer and accurate understanding of them? What struck you about the discussion?
Mike Hayden: I thought Secretary Clinton went into a little more detail when she specifically touched on safe areas and no fly zones (in Syria). I think she was a little more forward leaning than she’s been in the past, even though as Chris Wallace pointed out, that was beyond where President Obama has said we want to be.
I was struck—almost as much as I was struck when he said he might not respect the results of the election—when Trump just summarily dismissed a high confidence judgment from the American intelligence community that the Russians were responsible for hacking U.S. political party organizations, because the conclusion was politically inconvenient for him. From my life experience, that is just about as disqualifying as his saying he may not respect the results of the election. I found that to be a particularly stunning moment that he would not even engage on the premise. He just simply rejected it. That would be an incredibly dangerous characteristic as president.
I only speak for myself, but it was the classic example of what we call the unpleasant fact. He just refused to deal with it. He pretended it didn’t exist and his spokespeople after the event—I was watching on TV—said he doesn’t have to listen to the intelligence community, because the intelligence community got the Iraqi WMD wrong. I’ve never seen such a powerful political rejection of an intelligence assessment by an office holder or by a candidate.
James Jeffrey: On Russia, Trump refused again to even concede a real likelihood of Russian espionage. Clinton was forceful in debunking the argument that Russia is an ally in the fight against ISIS. She had relatively detailed plans for pursuing ISIS post Mosul and putting pressure on the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. She did not answer the question about whether she would shoot down a Russian plane violating her proposed no-fly zone in Syria. She interestingly ruled out U.S. ground troops to occupy Iraq post-ISIS defeat.
Trump raised Russian increase of nuclear weapons (he meant strategic) to 1800 without further elaboration. She directly challenged his fitness to make nuclear weapon release decisions. He cited Flag Officers and Medal of Honor winners backing him.
Jack Keane: What struck me was the lack of in depth discussion on the subjects. Only the surface was really scratched on these issues. By that I mean, Russia, China, and Iran are all revisionist powers seeking some form of regional domination, and they are all having some degree of success at it. Why they are succeeding and what we can do about it was not really the subject of any discussion. I thought that was unfortunate, because these are major issues that our president is going to deal with.
On ISIS, they were just dealing frankly with what was taking place in Mosul and not the larger issue of how do we eventually defeat ISIS. Mosul is a battle, and it’s not the entire campaign that’s necessary to defeat ISIS. There was no real discussion about that, nor much discussion about how do you change the status quo in Syria with the Assad regime other than Hillary Clinton discussing her desire to have safe zones and no fly zones in Syria, and Trump’s desire to leave Assad alone. I think that whole issue would have been followed up. I was a little disappointed in the lack of in depth discussion of national security and foreign policy.
The Russia discussion I thought was very superficial. On the one hand, Trump wants to talk to Russia and wants to attempt to have a relationship with them if possible and thinks teaming up with Russia against ISIS is a good thing. Clinton, I believe, was simply reacting to the fact that Russia conducted a cyber offensive operation which led to the WikiLeaks release of emails. I do agree with her that it’s pretty much well established by our government that the Russians are the culprit. I don’t think that our intelligence agencies are able to determine that the national leadership of Russia is involved, but I cannot imagine cyber attacks on a comprehensive basis being conducted against the United States without Putin giving authority to do it.
John Sipher: I think the format this time allowed for slightly more insights into issues than previous debates. However, as with previous debates, the discussion never really got past Russia and the Middle East. There was nothing related to India or Pakistan, the policy toward Asia, Latin America, or any other spots.
Mr. Trump rehashed many of the same lines as from previous debates: He commented about a depleted military and stupid leaders. In each debate, he’s repeated the notion that General Patton is rolling over in his grave.
Mrs. Clinton did make reference to supporting our allies and noted we kept the peace through NATO and our alliances. I think she was speaking directly to allies around the world who are worried about our commitments and credibility following Mr. Trump’s more inflammatory comments.
On Mosul, I think there was some useful discussion, more so on Aleppo (Syria) perhaps than Mosul. I found Mr. Trump’s comment that the Iraqi efforts to retake Mosul are all being done to help Mrs. Clinton campaign to make her look good—I thought that was crazy. He seemed confused and tried to use the assault on Mosul to rehash history and talk about the rise of Iran in the region. Both are certainly worthy topics of discussion. But the effort to retake Mosul from ISIS seemed to be the wrong place for him to bring that up. So it got confused.
There was more enlightening discussion about Aleppo at the debate. I was impressed by Secretary Clinton’s comment that military enforced safe zones and a no fly zone, which are her policies, were meant to show seriousness and gain leverage with the Syrians in order to support negotiation. I think that was a nuanced position, saying there is not an easy military solution but also that negotiations without the threat of force are likely to go no where, as they have done under Secretary John Kerry.
For Mr. Trump, I was very surprised that he again made the claim that Aleppo has fallen. I believe it is really dangerous for a U.S. Presidential candidate to be so cavalier about the potential slaughter of clearly innocent people. By brushing it off, he sent a powerful signal to our enemies that they can continue to engage in war crimes without consequences. I believe that the words of Presidents matter, and foreign policy leaders listen closely to what they say.
The historical precedent that comes to mind immediately for me is when Secretary of State Dean Acheson implied in congressional testimony that Korea was outside the U.S. defense perimeter. Many people believe those comments gave the communists the green light to invade the south in the 1950s. Secretary Acheson probably thought of it as a comment that was unimportant, but it ended up having huge political connotations.
On Russia, I find Mr. Trump’s comments continue to be really perplexing. In all three debates, he has refused to acknowledge Russia’s hostile actions towards the United States. He’s done so despite official statements by the intelligence community and a receipt of an intelligence briefing on this subject. He’s strongly diverged from his own party. I don’t know if his refusal has to do with personal business dealings, his concept that foreign policy is akin to business negotiations, or that Russia is somehow outplaying us. Mr. Trump, in order to win, has to convince the American people that we’re in a terrible situation, that the U.S. is weak and we can’t be trusted. That is also Mr. Putin’s view that he is trying to play around the world.
The comments that Russia has taken over the Middle East, seemed to imply that Trump is focused on tactical issues rather than larger strategic issues, where Russia’s power looks far less daunting.
Guy Swan: I focused in on the alliance discussion. I think the two candidates have differing views on the U.S.’s alliances, with Secretary Clinton emphasizing the importance of alliances to our national security, which I think Mr. Trump also agrees with, but I think their differences come down to burden sharing. This is always a topic in discussions about our alliances, where Mr. Trump believes that those that fall under the U.S. defense umbrella, so to speak, are not paying their fair share for that security. I think the big difference there is on burden sharing; we’ve heard that before and that continues to be a major difference between the two. It will be interesting to see how that plays out in the next administration given the many threats we have around the world.
On Russia, it’s fascinating that Secretary Clinton continues to take a hard line on the Russians, whether its cyber or their actions in Syria, which are reprehensible from anybody’s point of view. What’s interesting about Mr. Trump’s perception is that there may be common ground with the Russians in some areas, and he is willing to explore that. The real difference is that in Mr. Trump’s case, he makes the argument that in the fight against ISIS and in counterterrorism there may be some common ground there (with Russia).
On Mosul, Mr. Trump made a significant point, which many in the military and many of us who have served in Iraq would agree with, when he said that the real winner in the fight for Mosul will be Iran. I thought that point was quite striking – Iran, not the Iraqi people, not the Kurds and certainly not the people of Mosul—which is telling about how the Iraq experience has gone over the last 15, 20 years. Secretary Clinton sees the takedown of the ISIS stronghold in Mosul as a stepping stone to clearing ISIS out of Syria, which we all hope will happen. At the end of the day, the Iranians are the ones who seem to be benefitting from what’s going on in Mosul, at least from Mr. Trump’s perspective.
TCB: Now that the debates are in the history book, how would you characterize their usefulness in providing the public a better understanding of the candidate’s positions and a path forward on these key national security issues?
MH: They are often painful to watch and they certainly degenerated into something that couldn’t make us happy. But they were certainly very revealing, and here I’m talking about revealing of temperament. Mr. Trump, I think, was more coherent, his answers hung together better this time, but still, even in this debate, when asked to talk about complex foreign affairs, his most often used words were, “disaster” and “stupid.” We should hear a more detailed explanation and description of things.
Back to his characteristic of creating reality in order to meet his needs, he actually said that NATO nations are paying more because of what he said on the campaign, which is divorced from reality. And he repeats his old sob about the Saudis, the Japanese and the South Koreans getting a free ride. The numbers are: the Japanese pay two billion dollars a year, the South Koreans almost a billion dollars, and there are no U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.
To be modestly balanced, the debates showed that Secretary Clinton has a very long record and not all of it is good. He was successful in pointing that out.
JJ: On national security, the problem is that you had an extremely knowledgeable policy wonk, Clinton, talking basically like people in government do. Trump, on the other hand, levied barrage after barrage at all of the Obama foreign policy, linked her to it, and then simply said he would do much much better without describing how.
This apples and oranges discussion not only did not shed light on him, but because he didn't debate her on specifics, based on facts and reasonable interpretations, she did not have to reveal, prioritize, and justify tough positions and options, but rather got away with just reiterating conventional, boilerplate foreign policy that she can do in her sleep.
JK: I don’t think a very good job was done of exploring the major national security issues that the United States is being confronted with in anywhere near the kind of depth that these subjects, as complicated as they are, deserve. The discussions were largely superficial, and I thought that was unfortunate. I think all the moderators could have done a much better job at follow up questions to really pursue the subjects in some depth to better inform the American people.
JS: Even though the debate formats were slightly different from each other, I don’t think they allow for serious discussion or anything resembling in depth analysis. They did allow us to see the differences between the two candidates, but mostly due to the unique nature of these two candidates. However, all of the debates ended up solely focused on Russia and the Middle East, and discussion rarely got past platitudes and sound bites. Personally, I would hope the debate committees would look for opportunities to allow longer answers or more in depth questioning. It’s just too easy to rehearse sound bites now.
GS: I absolutely believe these debates are useful. They are wide ranging; they get into a lot of areas that are non-security, non-defense, non-foreign policy issues as they should. But the more that the public can hear the candidates espouse their policy goals, I think that’s in the best interests of the American people.
TCB: From what you’ve heard both in the debates and on the campaign trail, are there clear distinctions in the candidate’s positions and capabilities to handle national security issues, to be commander in chief that will enable voters to make their choice?
MH: Mr. Trump showed, particularly in this debate, quite a bit of skill in his ability to criticize what has gone on before. And in many instances he was correct. I just saw no coherent plan on his part to actually create an alternative to what has gone on before, something that was fact and reality based. I just never heard it. A great dystopian view of the world, but I really didn’t see anything I thought he was saying that would actually make the world a better place.
Clinton again, had the great burden of incumbency and defending the status quo. I have spent a lot of my time in the last eight years criticizing the Obama Administration’s work creating the current status quo. In principle, I agreed with many of Mr. Trump’s criticisms, but he just didn’t have the ability to add here is the adjusted approach I will take to make it better. It was just, it’s a disaster and they're stupid. If I had popped a beer every time he said disaster, I wouldn’t have gotten up this morning.
JJ: It comes down to character and temperament. Apart from notorious defensiveness, she has it; he demonstrated he did not.
JK: I think it’s kind of mixed, because on the one hand, you have Mr. Trump, who is pretty much advocating that the United States should stay out of the Middle East; that Japan, South Korea, and other countries that are traditionally our allies should be doing more on their own; and that the European nations should be doing more on their own, particularly those who are part of NATO. But he’s also said that when it comes to ISIS, he would organize a ground force and destroy ISIS very quickly, that he would leave it up to the military to figure out how to do that – he’d give them 30 days to come back to him with a plan. So on the one hand, Mr. Trump, with the exception of ISIS, when it comes to national security, sounds like an extension of the Obama Administration, because the Obama Administration has disengaged from the world, and it has increased the global security challenges the United States has, rather significantly.
Secretary Clinton, who supported President Obama in disengaging from the world, although it wasn’t really pursued enough to understand what her positions are, appears to have more of an assertive foreign policy and national security policy than President Obama. I don’t think when it comes to national security and foreign policy the voters really got to understand what the candidate believe the role of the United States should be in facing our very significant global security challenges, which I believe are the most formidable since the rise of the Soviet Union post WWII.
JS: I do think there are clear distinctions between the candidates, and the debates certainly helped to highlight those differences.
I think Mr. Trump has made some comments during the debates that were critical in assessing his temperament for the job. The most damning in last nights debate of course was his unwillingness to state that he would accept the result of the election. Personally, I find that dangerous. I have lived in countries where the people do not expect the peaceful transfer of power. And many of the best people in those countries look to the U.S. as the model to emulate. And whether he knows it or not, Mr. Trump’s comments can lead to serious violence like they have done in other countries. I don’t think that will happen here. When a potential president says things like that, it has serious ramifications.
However, I don’t know how much foreign policy issues, other than perhaps terrorism, is a deciding factor for most voters. I do think we got a good sense of the differences between these two candidates, but I don’t think we got a great sense of what they are going to do on foreign policy.
GS: I think both of them are fully capable of serving as the Commander-in-Chief. There are clear differences in the national security objectives, but as far as preparation goes, I think they’re both reasonably prepared to take on that task.
TCB: Any other thoughts?
MH: Even though Trump was much better, more coherent, answered with longer and more complex answers, his inability to just shut up when she was talking really was off-putting. When she would say something, and he would just go, “wrong” or “that’s not true,” or she’s “a very nasty woman.” But it wasn’t being addressed at him, it was just being about him.
It was probably his best performance, but it did not show to my mind the character and temperament that I would want in a president.
She had the disadvantage of defending a record, of being forced to somewhat defend the current administration. And frankly, her recommendations - although I thought when she differed with the president were moving in the right direction - I don’t know they differed from the President enough to make me happy.
JK: Now that the last debate is over, Amen!
GS: I’m looking forward to the election.
Pam Benson is the managing editor at The Cipher Brief.
Fionnuala Sweeney is vice president and executive editor at The Cipher Brief.
