Foreign Policy and the Vice Presidential Debate
The Biden-Palin debate had been much anticipated. Both candidates performed well – hitting their talking points and strengthening their bases. Palin was strong in her comfort area of energy and playing up her folksy delivery. Biden looked like a statesman and reamined composed. He appeared knowledgeable and confident on foreign policy. He didn’t gaffe to any real extent. She was coherent – a marked improvement from her previous interviews. Here at The Daily Clarity we focus on the international perspective so review their foreign policies.
Israel
The moderator cut right to the heart of the conundrum asking about the Palestine-Israel problem. This was a question noticeably missing from the previous week’s Presidential debate. Both candidates advocated the two state solution though neither delineated how this would be achieved. Both cited the threat from Iran and there would be no nuclear weapons for Iran. “Period,” to quote Palin. Reactions this morning from around the Middle East were mixed. The Israel press were euphoric over the continued unquestionable support from the US. Reactions from the Arab presses were not so unilaterally supportive. To quote the very knowledgeable but often controversial British journalist, Robert Fisk, “Palestinians were deleted from the narrative. There was no reference to Jewish settlements, built illegally on Arab land. There was not the slightest reference to the Israeli occupation on the West Bank.”
However, neither candidate gave any detail as to how a two state solution might be achieved so it is still not clear that the US has any serious intent to pursue a compromise solution.
Iraq
Palin was good on the rehearsed line but when pressed for detail on issues withdrew to the surge and energy independence as comfort talking points. She gets the prize for the best sound bite of the night with her ‘…white flag of surrender flying over Iraq.” However, in terms of the war there are some minor differences with Biden calling for a withdrawal on a timetable and Palin based on the General’s assessment of conditions on the ground. The reality of the situation is however that withdrawal will be much more a challenge than either candidate is admitting. The Republican stance is that Iraq is still a central front on terror. They are unwilling to concede on this point and makes any policy flexibility difficult for them. Biden used this effectively to tie together Bush’s troubled Iraq policies and McCain’s position on the war as an indicator of same policy continuation under a McCain-Palin government.
Iran
This was the most disappointing element of the debate. There was a lot of polemic from both sides – standard policy positions vocalized. There was no real insight supplied. Neither candidate have substantive comments on Russia and China not sanctioning the fourth round of mandates against Iran. No comments on the potential danger of arm supplies from Russia. In fact Russia was a missing ingredient from the debate. Neither candidate addressed the growing threat from Russia’s petroleum fueled revitalization and recent statements about enlarging their nuclear arsenal. Biden’s remarks were strong and knowledgeable on Hamas and Hezbollah. Palin didn’t add any dimension on this theme. She steered the debate back to energy independence where she feels safer.
Regional Complexities
Biden was much stronger on Pakistan and Afghanistan than Palin. In fact, Biden appeared a stronger advocate than Palin on the continuance of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes into the Pakistan-Afghan border region. Palin played the surge card effectively though gave no indication that she understood the three pronged approach of the surge strategy merely referencing the troop number increase. In fact, Iraq is now facing a danger period as the Sunni militia, a critical part of the surge, is transferred from the US payroll to the predominantly Shia Iraq fledgling government. The success or otherwise of the Sunni “Sons of Iraq’ assimilation will in actuality be the defining moment for Iraq and determine the viability of a US withdrawal strategy.
In summary, their foreign policy positions were not poles apart despite their claims of ’substantive differences’. The writers of The Daily Clarity’ have been criticized before for stating that the Republican and Democrat foreign policy are only different through nuance. Based on last night’s performance we stand by our position. On the key elements there is no real difference. The other interesting factor was the absence of any discussion on the other lead stories of the week that have dominated the international press such as the nuclear supply to India, the US installation of long range X band radars in Israel, the US-Isreal interceptor rocket collaboration and the new bomber plane contracts. No substantive discussion was held on China eiter. We were left with so many unanswered questions. In conclusion, the debate was Foreign Policy 101 and we will need to follow the campaign further to determine the detail that was not discussed.
