The issues covered during the two hours were: increasing the power of the Patriot Act in fighting terrorism; securing US interests in Pakistan; the next step in the war in Afghanistan; the backing of Israel, even in case of an attack against Iran; new rounds of sanctions against Iran; development and foreign aid; defense cuts; protection of the borders and stopping drug cartels; illegal immigration; Syria as a US interest?; and Al-Shabab in Somalia. So quite a broad agenda.
Not surprisingly, three groups can be identified among the eight GOP candidates: the isolationist (Ron Paul); the exceptionalists (Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingricht, Jon Huntsman); and the clueless (Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain).
Ron Paul has historically been one of the most consistent candidates especially in his view on foreign policy and national security. His argument can be divided into three narratives: first, Congress should be declaring war, not the President; second, the need to maintain a fair balance between security and liberties; third, no interference in domestic affairs of other countries.
The second group, or the exceptionalists, underlined the uniqueness of US power and the US as a country. As described by Mr. Santorum, “the US is the shiny city on top of the hill leading the world.” All of them agreed to increase the power of Patriot Act and even some of them – read Mr. Santorum – were in favor of racial profiling in the fight against terrorism. However, a division emerged around the question of Afghanistan, on one side, Mitt Romney called for a progressive removal of US troops, which is the current Obama strategy based on the advice of US Generals; while, Jon Huntsman called for a full removal of US troops as the missions – removal of the Taliban from Kabul, destroying Al Qaeda, holding free elections – have been attained. Mr Huntsman underlined that nation-building is not in the interest of the US. On the question of Iran, all of them expressed their support for Israel and raised concerns about a nuclear Iran. The strategies in order to limit Iran are quite unclear; some talked of regime change (Gingricht), while others of maintaining sanctions (Romney and Huntsman).
The third group exposed their ignorance in the questions of national security and foreign policy. Ms. Bachmann was always referring to intelligence and the need to gather more intelligence for the simple reason that she serves on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Ms. Bachmann was coveting this seat in order to give herself credentials needed in case of a presidential run. Mr Cain and Perry did neither convince nor show any knowledge of foreign policy matters. They were simply restating facts and following the ‘admitted’ narratives among conservatives.
Throughout the debate, one could see the clear lack of knowledge on the question of foreign policy. The arguments raised were too simplistic and lacked considerable depth. The opinions were one-sided with no understanding of others – either enemies and/or allies. The concept of soft power or smart power were dismissed in favor of over-used ideas of hard power, coercion, and national interests. Furthermore, this debate highlighted that American exceptionalism is still extremely present in the minds of conservative policy-makers. US national security must be enforced at any costs and could lead to violation of international law, and that national sovereignty (especially of Pakistan and Iran) can be violated in the name of US security. Ms. Bachmann, in previous speeches, declared that she considers torture as a valuable instrument to increase national security and gain valuable information.
The blame game of President Obama’s foreign policy and presidency has been considerable and probably the only point that all candidates agreed on. Mr. Obama has been portrayed as a weak commander in chief endangering the national security of the US as well as its power. Oftentimes, GOP candidates claimed that Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism. However, the positive dimensions of Obama’s foreign policy were either diminished or criticized. For example, on the killing of Osama bin Laden, all GOP candidates used the famous ‘we’ to describe a successful mission instead of giving credit to the Obama administration. On the mission in Libya, they all questioned the necessity of the operations as US interests were not at stake even; though the mission was a successful case of multilateralism and enforcement of the concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P).
Another interesting point was the discussion around the questions of cutting the deficit and balancing the budget. Both issues were framed as a
The decline of American power is a redline, never touched on by any of the candidates. Unfortunately, it is a reality. The answers and analyses were not appropriate to the reality of world politics and the changing nature of international relations. How can a debate on foreign policy go on for two hours without mentioning the rise of China, Brazil, Turkey and India? The answer is simple: denial over the rise of new foreign policy actors.
The last question from the audience was, “which national security matter that was not addressed during the debate concerns you the most?” Mr Santorum expressed his concerns with Central America and the spread of communism, while Mr. Paul showed his fear about American over-reaction to world events, which could lead to another war. Mr. Perry underlined his concerns on the rise of China as well as cybersecurity. Mr Romney also argued that China was a main threat, but a long-term one, whereas Iran is the present menace. Mr. Cain showed his concerns over the question of cybersecurty. Mr Gingricht talked about the threats of WMDs and cyberattacks. Ms Bachmann underlined the threat of terrorism. Last but not least, Mr. Huntsman expressed his concerns over the rise of China as well as the high domestic unemployment and high debt of the US economy.
Two conclusions can be made from this debate: first, all the candidates – with the exception of Ron Paul – if elected will be in the clear continuity of the
Looking through a European angle, the GOP candidates are sending a wrong message, or a message of deja-vu to the other side of the pond. It could very much mean that Mars is back.