index

With the presidential race heating up and the immense challenges faced by the U.S. across the globe, we are experiencing a lack of clarity from candidates of both political parties as it relates to foreign policy.

The situation in the Middle East is as prime example, with candidates on both sides of the political spectrum debating how we got into the situation in the first place, when both Republicans and Democrats supported military operations in Iraq.

Robert J. Art, writing in “A Grand Strategy for America” states said, “The most fundamental task in devising a grand strategy is to determine a nation’s national interests. Once they are identified, they drive a nation’s foreign policy and military strategy; they determine the basic direction that it takes, the types and amounts of resources that it needs, and the manner in which the state must employ them to succeed. Because of the critical role that national interests play, they must be carefully justified, not merely assumed.”

This is what is lacking, as both Democrats and Republican aspirants seeking the office of president in 2016 have failed to articulate.

Just last week, congress soundly rejected a trade agreement which would have given the president “Fast Track Authority”, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was called out by Democratic challenger for president, U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, regarding her lack of action on this issue.

“I frankly don’t understand how you could be a major candidate for president of the United States — Hillary Clinton, or anybody else — and not have an opinion on that issue. You can be for it, you can be against it.” Sander reiterated that she needs to articulate her position.

“Trade policies have been disastrous,” he said. “If she’s against this, we need her to speak out, right now.”

Clinton responded regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, “It has to include trade adjustment authority. To provide the kinds of protections for American workers that I am looking for.
But I am willing to try now to see whether you can push to get rid of the objectionable parts, to drive a harder bargain on some of the other parts, and to provide more transparency so that the American people can actually see what will be in a final proposed deal.

If I were in the White House, that’s what I’d be doing right now. Trying to figure out if there is a way to get a deal that does what it should do for the American workers… Let’s try and see whether there is this opportunity now.”

Clinton has never stated what changes she would make regarding trade adjustment authority, or what kind of protections she looking for to protect American workers, and what are the objectionable parts she has a disagreement on.

Just last month, Republican former Florida Governor stumbled over questions on the initial invasion of Iraq, and would he have authorized the war. He struggled to articulate his response, and other Republican contenders spent weeks trying to maneuver their answer to this question.

This all in the backdrop of the situation in the Middle East with regard to ISIS gaining ground in both Syria and Iraq.

With all the challenges the United States faces around the world, do we really know what vision the aspirants for the White House have for the country in a post Obama presidency.

Voters at this point may not be concerned with foreign policy, but what happens abroad has a direct impact here at home.

What are the candidates’ positions on free trade agreements, not only with the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, but what about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the European Union and the United States currently being negotiated?

How would the candidates deal with Iran and its goal of acquiring a nuclear device, this all in the context of Iran spreading its influence across the Middle East?

How will the candidates deal with ISIS and other Islamic militants across the Middle East? Reuters News Service reported that a U.S. air strike inside Libya had killed Mokhtar Belmokhtar, an Algerian militant who became a major figure in insurgencies across North Africa and the Saharan border region, and was dubbed “The Uncatchable” by the French military.

What about Afghanistan? The president has decided to leave around 10,000 U.S. military personnel. What strategy would the next president have for Afghanistan and for the region; in particular, how would they deal with Pakistan?

How would the candidates deal with Russia, especially President Vladimir Putin and his provocative actions inside Ukraine?
Finally, neither of the candidates have spoken at any great length with regard to China. China has unnerved many of its neighbors, especially its actions in the South China Sea.

The focus may be on domestic policy, but foreign policy has always been the Achilles heel of many presidents in the past.
One only has to remember that since the end of the Second World War, only three presidents had any measurable foreign policy experience before they became president, and they were Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush, Sr.

It would be nice to know the grand strategy of the next president, but unfortunately is all we have are the candidates pitching in political tactical terms.