It has been a power packed seven months of campaigning for the presidential hopefuls. Every dirty linen has been washed in front of the public from immigration to job creation, economy, Islamic State and Obamacare. Minus the rhetoric on Islamic State, one issue that has been conveniently kept on the backburner is U.S. foreign policy. Now, there can be possibly two reasons why candidates have avoided real talk on the issue: Obama administration’s excellence or the candidates’ incompetency.
Look at some of the many successes Obama has had in the last seven years. First, there was the elimination of Bin-Laden in 2011, followed by the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime. This led to the reduction of the massive operational cost in Iraq by removing our troops, a refreshed Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia that reduced nuclear arsenals to under 1550 each and the Iran Deal that prevents the country from acquiring a nuclear weapons.
You have to give it to the president on some of his successes, unless you believe it is possible to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, make Mexico build a wall and ban all Muslims from entering the U.S.
The new president will inherit an unstable middle east, the buffoon’s antics in North Korea with the hydrogen bomb, Pakistan’s safe haven for terrorism, proxy wars between countries surrounding Afghanistan and the most important of all, ISIS. The main foreign policy goal today is eliminating the Islamic State; there can be no debate on this. Contrary to what the Obama administration believes, many experts still feel a ground force is required to completely decimate the terrorists. Air strikes are only half effective, and unless there is a “shock and awe” strategy implemented on the ground it is impossible to destroy ISIS.
“Currently there are several hundred commandos on the ground but that is just not enough,” a former chief of army staff pointed out.
This seven-month-old presidential election wave has spent a lot of time on Christmas cups, Carson’s past, media’s role in debates, Obamacare etc. It’s not that these are unimportant, but the discussion needs to be channeled back to real foreign policy issues.
How are we going to win back Israel’s trust? Is South Korea facing a real threat? Sunni nation Saudi Arabia has felt a huge letdown after our proximity with Iran, so how is the new president going to deal with this? Russia has promised a backlash on Turkey. Will that be something to be concerned about? Pakistan continues proxy wars against India and Afghanistan and on U.S. troops in the valley, will we continue our military and economic aid that is worth a billion dollars? What measures will the new president take to help prevent a Paris in one of our cities?
Journalists need to cut through the noise and ask these questions of candidates. This may not make for a luscious sound bite but may give the electorate what they want to hear from a possible head of state.
When you have one dolt running for president, the level and quality of a debate drastically declines because everybody tries to win him over using his tactics. Remember the old saying one rotten apple spoils the barrel? That is what has happened to the quality of discussion surrounding the presidential hopefuls, a constant one-upmanship over stupidity.
The president’s office has been held in the past by George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Franklin Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Harry Truman, John Kennedy and the list just goes on. These are people who we have grown up studying and even been inspired by. For a moment now take a deep breath and look at the people running today and the recent comments made by them.
The level of debate needs to be raised in America. This is the highest and most powerful office in the world. Please ensure competency, ability and compassion are perquisites.
