The headlines coming out of last night’s GOP debate predictably emphasized the candidates clashing. Of course there were some clashes; this was a debate after all. But what struck me is not the level of acrimony but the lack thereof. It was, on the whole, a civil and informed debate with most of the candidates displaying familiarity with the issues; the exceptions were Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Ron Paul, who seemed out of their depth discussing foreign affairs. It is perhaps no coincidence that Paul–whose answer to every question seems to be that he’s opposed to war, period–displayed a stunning lack of knowledge of specific issues, for example conflating Somalia’s Shabaab with al-Qaeda. Both are Islamist terrorist organizations, but they have no formal affiliation.
Jon Huntsman knew more (as he not so subtly reminded viewers with his reference to China), but he was also out of step with the other candidates–for example, by advocating a rapid drawdown in Afghanistan that would most likely lead to the collapse of the Afghan government and a recurrence of the terrible civil war that devastated the country in the 1990s. But he has only slightly more hope than Paul does of becoming the Republican nominee. Both men are an asterisk in the race–notably only for getting unearned national airtime at debates such as this one.
The other candidates–Mitt Romney (full disclosure: I’m an adviser to his campaign), Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum–showed not only command of the topics but a large degree of agreement on the major foreign policy issues, such as the war on terror, Israel, Iran and the war in Afghanistan. Leaving aside immigration (a domestic issue which somehow intruded at great length) their major disagreements are over the implementation of policies to address such difficult issues as Pakistan–an area where even conservative policymakers and scholars are split and where there is hardly a”right” answer.
Despite the usual handwringing about the supposedly low quality of the candidates and the head scratching over why the “best” candidates refuse to run, I came away impressed by the field and reassured that a strong, forward-leaning American foreign policy dedicated to maintaining our global leadership finds such broad support from the mainstream Republican candidates. After a decade of war, it appeared to be possible that there would be an isolationist backlash even in the GOP. That hasn’t happened, leaving poor Ron Paul to lead the isolationist caucus pretty much by himself, with an occasional assist from the irrelevant Huntsman.
"no formal affiliation"? Wrong. Sorry, some of Shabaabs leaders were the AQ east africa cell responsible for the 1998 embassy bombings. Some of them were recently killed in Somalia. Fazul Abdullah Mohammed: Fazul, a Kenyan, was appointed by Osama bin Laden as al Qaeda's leader in East Africa in late 2009. Before the death of Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, Fazul served as the military operations chief for al Qaeda in East Africa. Fazul was an experienced al Qaeda leader who is known to be able to move in and out of East African countries with ease. In August 2008, he slipped a police dragnet in Kenya. Fazul had been sheltering in Somalia with Shabaab and the Islamic Courts for years. Fazul was considered to be Shabaab's military leader, while *Sheikh Muktar Abdelrahman Abu Zubeyr is Shabaab's spiritual leader. He was killed on 8 June 2011. n nThe list of AQ peeps in leadership roles in shabaab keeps going…
Hey Max… you really need to do the full-disclosure thing before you start slamming the opponents of the candidate you're working for. I mean, slam away, but that "oh-by-the-way-I-work-for-Romney"? n nThat needs to go at the top. You know? A decent respect for the opinions of your readers, and all that.
shucks, you don't like Jon "Who?" Huntsman? why, he's MSNBC's favorite Republican, didn't you know that? n nseriously tho: n n…"Leaving aside immigration (a domestic issue which somehow intruded at great length…" n nerm, the debate was on "national security," and therefore immigration was a perfectly appropriate topic of discussion since illegal immigration threatens our national security.
Its funny how everyone that is not OK with America telling them how to live is a TERRORIST. The reason they are fighting is because of your attempt to control them. Hell, in America, if you walk into someones house uninvited while the family is having dinner (steaks)………Then you sit down, and tell them that not only should they not be eating right now, but that they also shouldnt cook steaks……then you eat their steaks. then imagine that the family that will obviously do whatever they can to relieve themselves from this intruder are called terrorists…….if there is no intruder (America) then there is no need to combat it.
"But he has only slightly more hope than Paul does of becoming the Republican nominee. Both men are an asterisk in the race–notably only for getting unearned national airtime at debates such as this one." n nPaul has done consistenctly if not spectularly in polls and has raised alot of money. He's well head of Huntsman in every measurable way. n n"After a decade of war, it appeared to be possible that there would be an isolationist backlash even in the GOP. That hasn’t happened, " n ntrue n
Romney? Obviously, Boot thinks we should invade Iran and start a trade war with China. This is what he would call “depth in foreign affairs”? Sound more like Boot’s own “stunning lack of knowledge.” n nWe have got to stop these Neocon war mongers this election. Pro-war Obama obviously won’t do it.
Ron Paul is not isolationist. You Fail.
I disagree.
It is so funny how all the commentators on this site are afraid of Ron Paul. I responded to an article by a guy named Toobin and they actually kept parts of my comment in and edited everything I said about Ron Paul out. This is not commentary. These people have an agenda to keep Ron Paul from getting any positive press, not because they don't think he makes sense, which he does, but because they are afraid of him.