This Wednesday’s Republican debate could be pretty revealing when it comes to the candidates’ views on security and foreign policy. Or, at least, we have the right to hope so.
Moderators Dana Bash, Hugh Hewitt, Jake Tapper: please note. How about some questions along the following lines?
I’d like you to ask the candidates to explain what they would really do about the Iranian nuclear deal. “Rip it up” is a good sound bite, but I’d like to know what that really means. Sure, we can re-impose some U.S. sanctions on Iran, but who is up for tough secondary sanctions on our friends and adversaries who will not?
And points off for anyone who takes refuge by just mouthing undying support for Israel. Who is prepared to give the Jewish state the massive ordnance penetrator, the 30,000 pound bunker-buster capable of smashing the Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow? And what do you intend to do about the U.S. commitment (in the Iranian agreement) to protect Tehran’s nuclear program against third party sabotage? Where do you draw the line on Israeli behavior vis a vis settlements, the Palestinians, Gaza?
While we’re in the Middle East, I’d like to know which candidates think that Iraq and Syria are still really countries. When will any of them be prepared to cut their Sykes-Picot losses and begin to construct stable successor states? Specifically, who is willing to bypass Baghdad and double down on the only friendly army in the region that shows up for the fight, the Kurdish Peshmerga?
And who is willing to make war on what remains of Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, the ultimate cause of today’s horrific refugee flows and, at the same time, responsible for the growth of ISIS? And this cannot be just about regime overthrow, a la the tragically failed campaign in Libya. How long are you willing to stick around afterward to put some pieces back together?
Of course, beating up on Assad would stress the Russians who have already beaten us to the punch in deploying forces into Syria. Who is willing to ground the Syrian helicopter fleet and its deadly cargo of barrel bombs with Russian fighter aircraft and SAMs now in the neighborhood? Anyone up for creating (and protecting) a true safe haven for refugees inside northern Syria?
And what’s the overall view on Putin and Russia? Is Moscow resurgent or merely revanchist? I think Putin is doing all this mischief with little more than a pair of sevens in his hand. Is it time to call and push back? How hard? How about significant arms deliveries to the Ukrainians for a start?
There is no secret sauce for the great war of our time, the war on terror. We’re in it for the long haul (right?). Once any of you are in office, I'd like to know what specific actions you would take against ISIS beyond today's holding action? I'm also curious about your views on root causes. How much of this is about Islam?
And where do you come down on questions of liberty and security, privacy and safety? By the way, automatic disqualification from the serious person club for anyone who says that there really aren't such tradeoffs.
China’s President Xi Jinping is expected in Washington shortly. How do you characterize the Peoples’ Republic: potential partner, today's competitor, future enemy? What would you do about their building “sand castles” in the South China Sea? Would you impose economic sanctions on China for their cyber behavior?
I suspect we won't get to a detailed level on many of these. There are lots of issues, eleven candidates and only a couple of hours. But we should be able to sense some tone.
Like who is comfortable with American power and believes that its use can be positive. And who might be willing, as President, to invest personal and political capital in addressing tough (even unpopular) questions abroad. Or who has sufficient respect for the true complexities of some of these issues to avoid jingoism, sloganeering or just flat out claims of being so smart.
Oh, I almost forgot. Who, as President, intends to take a personal, face-to-face intelligence update every day?
