• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • REACTION ROUNDUP: GOP Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy

    North Korea: A Neglected National Security Threat
    - Bruce Klingner

    It’s hard to overlook half of the globe, but that’s what happened during the Republican presidential debate on national security. Despite the critical importance of Asia to U.S. economic and security interests, the region was largely ignored. China was mentioned only in passing during the candidates’ closing remarks, and there was no mention of America’s economic partners and treaty allies.

    Iran’s continued efforts to develop nuclear weapons figured prominently in the evening’s debate, with wide-ranging discussions on the impact on regional security, particularly for U.S. ally Israel. Unfortunately, North Korea’s existing weapons programs, which are a far more developed security threat than Tehran’s, were not addressed.

    North Korea already has six to eight nuclear weapons and 1,000 missiles that threaten South Korea, Japan, and U.S bases in Okinawa and Guam. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned in January 2011 that North Korea could hit the United States with a nuclear weapon by 2015.

    Pyongyang has historically proven to be most dangerous when it is ignored. During the past three years, the North Korean regime attacked South Korea twice and continues to threaten war against the United States and its allies.

    North Korea is currently engaged in a periodic charm offensive as it seeks large-scale food aid and economic assistance. But Kim Jong-il will inevitably return to provocative behavior if he fails to gain his objectives through peaceful means. President Obama discovered early on that offering to engage Pyongyang did not prevent North Korea’s belligerent behavior.

    The next U.S. President could face a North Korean crisis early in his or her Administration. It would be worthwhile to discern whether the Republican candidates have a plan for dealing with Pyongyang before one of them potentially becomes commander in chief.

    Security in Latin America: One of Our Nation’s Greatest Threats?
    - Jessica Zuckerman

    In tonight’s Republican presidential debate, we heard several mentions of Latin America as the candidates came together to discuss our nation’s most pressing foreign policy and national security issues. Not surprisingly, talk of our Western Hemisphere neighbors arose in discussion of the relationship between Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as in debate over the ever-present menace of Mexican criminal cartels.

    Yet, debate over American foreign policy and Latin America did not end there. As the event drew to a close and candidates were asked to highlight what they saw as the most significant threat to the United States that was not being discussed, the issue of this region’s security was raised.

    Last week, Heritage had the pleasure to welcome Central America’s ambassadors to the stage for a discussion of Next Steps Toward Central American Security. Throughout each of the ambassadors’ remarks, a common theme emerged of a strong desire to work with the United States to build a more secure and stable Western Hemisphere. America’s present and future leaders would be wise to listen to the ambassadors’ calls and seek to build upon and expand existing security partnerships throughout the region.

    With the war on drugs in Mexico raging on and brutality and violence rampant throughout much of the region, Latin American security is an issue the United States cannot afford to ignore.

    Iran Policy Featured Prominently in Republican Presidential Debate
    - James Phillips

    U.S. policy regarding Iran emerged as a key focal point of tonight’s debate due to the growing threat posed by Iran’s accelerating nuclear weapons program and support for terrorism. All the candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) agreed that Iran’s Islamist regime poses a threat to U.S. national security, and several mentioned Iran’s growing ties with Venezuela and support for Hezbollah activity in Latin America. All agreed that the United States needs to do more to ratchet up sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear program, although Jon Huntsman noted that sanctions alone would not work because China and Russia “won’t play ball.”

    Michele Bachmann criticized President Obama’s lack of leadership on Iran and called for energy independence as a means of reducing Iran’s oil power. Newt Gingrich said that to get serious about Iran would require a major expansion of U.S. energy production to reduce Iran’s leverage over oil-importing U.S. allies, and he maintained that any use of military force should be a last resort tied to regime change in Iran, not just targeted at Iran’s nuclear program. Mitt Romney stressed that tough action against Iran could be costly in terms of higher gasoline prices at home, but that a nuclear Iran ultimately would exact even greater costs.

    The candidates clashed more directly over U.S. policy toward Syria, with Rick Perry calling for the imposition of a no-fly zone, which most other candidates said was unnecessary or premature. Most supported stronger sanctions against Syria but not U.S. military action at this time, with Paul dismissing a no-fly zone as “just looking for more trouble.” The only subject that all agreed on was that the Obama Administration had botched U.S. Middle East policy.

    China, Defense, and the Republican Candidates
    - Dean Cheng

    With the conclusion of the second debate focusing on foreign policy, the Republican candidates again faced few questions regarding China or Asia. Coming on the heels of President Obama’s series of summits and meetings in Australia and Indonesia, it is somewhat surprising that no one raised the issue of Asian policy with any of the candidates.

    This situation is unlikely to last beyond the primaries. Once the Republican field is whittled down to a single opponent against President Obama, there will likely be aired a range of concerns, from Chinese currency and exchange rate policies to the growing assertiveness of Chinese foreign policy toward its neighbors, many of which are also U.S. allies and friends.

    The U.S. defense budget, which was raised in the course of the debate, will influence American policy toward China. With the failure of the “super committee,” the path is now set for sequestration and defense budget cuts in the $500 billion to $650 billion range. On top of the previously administered $450 billion cut, the Department of Defense is looking at $1 trillion in cuts in the coming years, which will inevitably affect recruiting, acquisition, training, maintenance, and R&D. Disappointingly, while almost all of the candidates said they deplored the projected cuts, no clear policy was enunciated by any of them about how they would deal with such slash-and-burn policies. In the absence of specifics, it is an open question how the Republican field would deal with the impact of budget cuts on the U.S. military posture in Asia, specifically its ability to respond to Chinese moves.

    Nonetheless, what did come through from the debate is a broad consensus that current U.S. foreign policy is rudderless and lackluster. No matter who eventually wins the nomination, it appears clear that, should a Republican win in 2012, American foreign policy will follow a new and different path.

    Reality Check: GOP Debate
    - James Jay Carafano

    One thing that should be abundantly clear after listening to all the issues raised in the debate is that America can’t be defended on the cheap. Regardless of what the candidates said tonight, the reality is that if one of them takes office, he or she will be commander in chief of a military that is under-funded and under-powered. President Obama has already put enough cuts on the table to leave the military smaller and less capable than when he took office.

    Changing the trajectory of the U.S. military will require investing in the military and dealing with our fiscal crisis. This debate gave each candidate an opportunity to make a case for being up to the job.

    Why Europe Matters to the Next President
    - Sally McNamara

    Europe didn’t come up as an issue with the GOP presidential candidates tonight, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be a priority for them. They should be careful not to neglect America’s historic alliances across the Atlantic the way President Obama has.

    The next U.S. Administration must focus on revitalizing America’s bilateral alliances with key European nations, especially the Anglo-American Special Relationship. Despite the European debt crisis dominating most discussions of Euro-American relations of late, the transatlantic relationship is bigger than the EU, and it is certainly far too important to tie to the future of a single European currency.

    The next U.S. Administration shouldn’t neglect America’s bilateral alliances; in fact, the next Administration should invest the bulk of its time and attention to reinforcing them. Working closely with the U.K., the Netherlands, Poland, and other European nations, the United States will find that its closest partners in defending its many global interests are just across the Atlantic. America’s interests are common to Europe as well—including countering terrorism, preventing nuclear proliferation, promoting economic freedom, supporting democracy, preventing the redrawing of borders by force, and creating free energy markets in the world.

    The United States and the nations of Europe share a common commitment to peace, justice, security, democracy, and freedom. Ensuring that its enduring alliances in Europe are maintained must be on the next Administration’s agenda.

    Missile Defense Glaringly Absent from Debate
    - Baker Spring

    It is disappointing that missile defense did not come up in the Republican presidential national security debate in Washington. The debate over missile defense is not just about fielding another weapons system, because the matter of whether the U.S. will pursue a truly effective capability in this area speaks to a more fundamental policy issue.

    During most of the Cold War, the United States chose not to field effective missile defenses, because its prevailing policy determined that leaving itself and its allies vulnerable to nuclear-armed missile attack strengthened stability. In a world where the proliferation of both nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems are looming, such vulnerability becomes a major source of instability. In short, Cold War notions that equate vulnerability with strategic stability are seriously flawed.

    Any serious presidential candidate must address this issue of new formulas for strategic stability in a proliferating world. The proper alternative to Cold War policy is one based on the United States defending itself and its allies against strategic attacks to the best of its ability. A declared commitment by any of the candidates to field a robust missile defense capability would have been the best means for signaling a change in policy toward supporting a more defensive strategic posture. All the Republican presidential candidates missed an important opportunity to state that they recognize the need for this fundamental change in strategic policy.

     

    Posted in Featured [slideshow_deploy]

    30 Responses to REACTION ROUNDUP: GOP Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy

    1. Julie says:

      There is no mention of supporting Israel as a Security and Foreign Defense issue in the poll. The world is steadily becoming anti-Israel and for no reason that holds to the truth. Why shouldn't we be strongly declaring our support of our most precious ally in the troubled Middle East? If we don't, we will be in a world of hurt. People need to understand why support of Israel is a necessity in our fight against terrorism and world domination by radical Islam.

      • Big John 555 says:

        "People need to understand why support of Israel is a necessity in our fight against terrorism and world domination by radical Islam." – Julie
        You say we need to understand it. I say someone needs to explain it – I don't know of anything Israel does for us. I see it only as us doing for them. The Arab nations were our allies during WWII. We had soldiers stationed in Libya through the 1950's and, I believe a good part of the 60's.
        The US support of pushing Arabs of land that had been theirs for hundreds of years, and pushing them into refugee camps turned a lot of Arabs and Muslims against us. Please explain it to me. We have no bases in Israel. They give us no Foreign Aid. What are OUR benefits?

    2. Emmet says:

      How can the Congress be stopped from being exempt from insider trading laws when they are the ones who would vote on it?

    3. Richard Storti says:

      How will the next President support Israel?
      Israel and America have always been strong allies, but lately it seems
      America has turned away from her.

    4. Just Wondering says:

      May I respectfully ask why Heritage chose to partner with CNN and Wolf Blitzer, who are pretty much the opposite of everything conservatives stand for?

    5. watt says:

      When if at all, will there be a conservative questioner? Heritage, didn't you have any input?

    6. DPofMI says:

      Why in the heck is Heritage sponsoring Wolf Blitzer as moderator? Can't find a Sean Hannity, or Ann Coulter, or Glen Beck or someone with a brain to moderate these debates? What is wrong with you people?

    7. Tim Cleary says:

      due to the economic crisis in the world today, do you believe we are headed for another world war? why or why not?

    8. Brian says:

      Michelle Bachmann for Sec of State

    9. Rick Santourum is right it is radical Islam the problem.

    10. shirlene says:

      Would they be willing to cut the washington elites salary and increase the military boys pay?Cut wastefully spending at the Pentagon but not the military defense?

    11. brdunc88 says:

      Assuming leadership of a politically divided nation on a nose dive course to self destruction, economic collapse, uncontrolled taxation,a drastic reduction in defense funding and a pressing internal takover of a radical socialogist idealogy, how would you reduce international tension while simultaneously returning the nation to a land of economic strentgh, leadership and moral character?

    12. poor, so i live in the hotest city in the us, but i should not use my a/c? my daughter has athsma, but maybe i should not allow her to use he breathing machine, cause it cost electricity. my youngest son is a united states marine. i am ashamed that he has to defend people like u. i work on salary, have not had a raise in 4 years, yet my boss has bought a motorhome, race cars, 3 harleys etc. last year i had to file for bankruptcy because i lose my medical insurance and my daughter had to go to the emergency room. i can not understand how people that say they are god fearing people saying its the poors fault, and also if they are poor it our faults. god help u cause i know when you stand in front of the pearly gates. god will turn you all away. you have no love or compassion. hell is the only place for u.

    13. i am sure they will not approve, cause i am poor. but god will decided on judgement day

    14. Harold Clark says:

      During the National Anthem, your own people in the front were shown on TV not rendering proper respect to the Country. I question where your dedication is. Are you in it for your country or continued financial rewards for journalism. I will unsubscribe

    15. Karl Miller says:

      I was hoping that missile defense would have been a key topic of discussion.

    16. Wall Street Ranter says:

      You talk about the defense cuts as if they are a lot. That is a joke. The reality is you could cut the full 1.2 Trillion from the defense budget over 10 years and that would still make it slightly ABOVE it's inflation adjusted average. The Military Industrial Complex and it's supporters are a joke. You want security? Get out of everyones business. More details about the ridiculous calls to stop defense cuts can be seen here http://www.wallstreetrant.com/2011/11/how-is-it-h

    17. Tim Havlik says:

      So, are we in agreement that the Republican field is weak right now in cutting a clear path of substance against an administration that is extremely vulnerable? Sounds like they need to be spending more time consulting with the Heritage Foundation.

    18. margmarieh says:

      I had wanted some comments from the folks that would let me know who they thought was the most impressive candidate in the matter of security. What I got was some deeper thinking. More than ever, I don't like the forum of the debates. I wish each candidate could be interviewed personally and quietly by Heritage folks, with some of the questions addressing some of the above concerns.

    19. DPofMI says:

      With the commentator posing questions and leaving little time for response, did any of you really think the entire globe would be included in any one candidate's response? Next time, maybe a moderator other than CNN or MSNBC would garner a more detailed response. Heritage needs to reconsider it's support of liberal media debates.

    20. Clearhead says:

      Okay, Mikey — With one glaring exception the candidates responded to the questions put forth to them. At the end they were asked what they considered the biggest threat to national security, and they were given about 30 seconds to respond. During the debate itself, we heard not one question from the obviously programmed list, about North Korea, Central America, or missile defense. How do you expect them to respond to questions that were not asked of them? Largely they answered within the realm of the questions asked, and no, they didn't wander off into the areas of the "neglected" and "absent" subjects you mention. In future debates with joint HF participation, we advise you to program the questions to which you desire an answer instead of speculating that they might diverge from the given subject and touch on these subjects. (And when they don't, find fault with them and whine about it.)

    21. karl Miller says:

      I am also surprised the START treaty was not a key topic of discussion or that the LOST treaty did not come up.

    22. Laurie Foley says:

      I think all the debates were like a circus. No one got to really say their mind in the time alloted. Granted there are a whole lot of folks talking on stage, but fair is fair. The maybe front runners get the time the others are left in the dust and thrown a nugget here and there. I dont think whoever is the moderator with so many on stage and so little time for each that the results would be much different. The field should have been narrowed down by the party internally before the public got to witness this childlike production of "Let me Talk Now, Please"

    23. Jack Tirrell says:

      I was disappointed the Heritage Foundation did not insist on an neutral moderator. Wolf Blitzer follows all the other moderators who are extreme far left liberals/progressives. A good friend of mine, Dr. Vince Lazara, came up with a great idea. His idea is that all of the candidates for every future debate should agree together to tell the moderator they will not answer any questions but will agree to be allowed to make detailed statements concerning their positions by topic and have agreed that they will respond to each of the other candidates' positions. It is time the Republicans take control of this debate process which has been hijacked by the progressives who consistently demonstrate they are bereft of any new ideas that will benefit our great nation. The only thing any of these leftist moderators could do is to attempt to steer the debate to what progressives think are "hot button issues" that will put the candidates in a bad light.

    24. Muggs says:

      I CONCUR IN COMMENT FROM DPofMl.
      I ALSO WANT TO SAY—"LIMIT TERMS OF LEGISLATORS, PUT ALL UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE, NO SPECIAL LAWS FOR LEGISLATORS, ALL UNDER SAME AS ALL AMERICANS, MORE PAY FOR THOSE SERVING IN OUR ARMED FORCES.
      WILL THINK OF MORE FOR THIS LIST IN NEXT SEVERAL DAYS..

    25. Jon says:

      Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “Romney looked a little piqued at Ron Paul on the budget. I think Ron knows what he’s talking about.”

      Red State’s Erick Erickson: “Ron Paul actually gets a great comeback at Mitt Romney and actually shows he knows more about the budget than Romney on this point. Wow.”

      Talk radio host Neal Boortz: “Go get ‘em Ron Paul! They aren’t cutting anything out of anything. Base-line budgeting. So right.”

      CNN’s Roland Martin: “Rep. Ron Paul just schooled Mitt Romney on what’s happening on Capitol Hill. Paul is there. Mitt isn’t. Who do you trust?”

      Washington Examiner/American Spectator’s Philip Klein: “Ron Paul smart to turn military cuts question into general rant about how Congress never actually cuts spending.”

      MSNBC’s Howard Fineman: “Ron Paul is dominating this debate! ‘They are not cutting anything out of anything.’ He’s right, of course.”

    26. Jack Tirrell says:

      I was disappointed the Heritage Foundation did not insist on an neutral moderator. Wolf Blitzer follows all the other moderators who appear to push a liberal/progressive agenda. A good friend of mine, Dr. Vince Lazara, came up with a great idea. His idea is that all of the candidates for every future debate should agree together to tell the moderator they will not answer any questions but will agree to be allowed to make detailed statements concerning their positions by topic and have agreed that they will respond to each of the other candidates' positions. It is time for conservatives take control of this debate process which has been hijacked by the progressives. The the leftist moderators seem to attempt steer the debate with questions/statements to put the Republican candidates in a bad light.

    27. Marion says:

      How come Washington politicians -including the president-got to live under different health care,Medicare,social security, etc. rules thatAmericans have to be told they must live with? If they were under the same guidelines in life as the rest of us -we would not have many of the spending problems we have today in washington. (what is demanded from Americans,should also be demanded from congress and the white house).

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×