“doesn’t seem to understand” vs. “you were wrong”

September 26th was a date of the first presidential debate in this campaign. As for every ‘first’ aspect of reality, debate was expected to be one of the most important of all. The expectations at this level however, were not solely a result of a position of this debate within the schedule – what was more important were the issues – monumental both for the American citizens and their economy, America’s standing within the global architecture and international community as a whole. It is obvious that issues at hand – again, economic crisis, foreign policy and national security would attract a great audience domestically and internationally. As a matter of principle, discussion present in the debate was to ascend from campaign-level into an argument-based polemic face to face.

This debate did not seem to meet expectations of its (at least) international audience. It is well known that presidential debates’ sole purpose is to convince voters to vote for given candidates, not introduce new ideas. However, international analysts after viewing this debate may feel slightly uncomfortable. Issues that were discussed were clearly those with immense resonance in American public, others no matter how important to America’s global standing were not elaborated upon – for instance : question of China and relations with NATO and European Union – which are critical [as many analysts highlight] to maintain America’s position in global affairs.

The debate was without a doubt, a repetition of campaign slogans, even within the economic crisis section, which was expected by many to bring some fresh points from both candidates. McCain insisted on ‘cut spending’ strategy, while Obama repeated his ‘help the middle class’. None of the candidates wished to elaborate on which points out of their presidential strategies to abandon to help reinstall the good state of U.S. economy. That however is understandable – this is how votes are lost – and even Jim Lehrer’s question spree did not break any of the two.

When it comes to foreign policy and national security both candidates did not express the majority of their fundamental differences. Most of their dispute was solely concentrated upon Iraq and Afghanistan, question of Russia and that represented something, which in case of foreign policy is inherent – there are issues on which there is simply no discussion for they define what many politicians refer to as national interests.

McCain’s approach to the debate may be asserted very easily – his primary objective being demonstration of experience and simultaneously highlighting inexperience of his adversary. The tools and performance seemed to be very simple – Arizona senator skillfully juggled with the names of states of regions and carefully repeated ‘I’ve been there’ ‘I’ve met with…’, which perhaps represent fabulous knowledge of geography, but not necessarily credibility in foreign policy, however this tactic could persuade few undecided voters.

Obama on the other hand did not seem to intend to demonstrate his experience so radically, it was rather his understanding of global situation as well as the shape of events in areas vital to U.S. national security. He agreed on relatively many issues with McCain, which was picked up by republicans after debate to show his incompetence. His views on challenges facing America seemed to be more progressive, focusing on America’s reputation in the world and the importance of its restoration through educational and diplomatic routes, and of course new technologies, to decrease U.S. dependency on foreign oil.

Areas where both candidates had a major quarrel were unsurprisingly Iraq, and Iran. Senators McCain’s and Obama’s positions on Iraq are well known from campaign speeches and rallies. McCain defended his strategy with questions of victory and defeat – continued presence, sustaining a surge and withdrawal being correspondent to aforementioned. Despite the political danger this approach is crafting for republican campaign due to the lack of support among the Americans, senator McCain strongly defends the presence of American troops in Iraq and recommends increase in their numbers. Nevertheless, he did not discuss the strategy or a plan, as to how long would America’s presence in that region would remain. This raises important doubts about the reality of victory through presence, which Senator John McCain referred to, for history demonstrates many examples of completely wrong strategies and unplanned military interventions that turned out to be disastrous, war in Iraq being one of them (at least up to now).

Deriving from his statements during the debate, Obama on the other hand did not seem to be influenced in any major part by the vast group of his advisers and political supporters – Brzezinski, Albright, Kennedy and many more, who provide detailed strategies and ideas on how to stand up towards America’s challenges. These ideas could have a decisive impact upon his performance in this section of the debate, if properly cited – that did not occur to McCain’s advantage.

What is important for stabilizing the situation in the Middle East region (a principal challenge to U.S. security and policy overall) is placing a stronger emphasis in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where resurgent Al Qaeda and the Taliban are prevailing step by step, not to mention profoundly organized strategy to control Iran’s nuclear aspirations. It is critical to adhere to reality – America’s role within the international community is no longer based on one goal or strategy it should consist of many approaches dealing with different actors – including principal U.S. allies – for instance the European Union. Surprisingly, a desired vision of EU’s involvement and cooperation (both very important to the U.S. security) in the region was omitted both by the organizers and the candidates. America in order to maintain its current position needs to return to diplomacy as a principal element or tool used to project power and influence. Senator McCain’s vision of engaging Iran without considering diplomatic talks is dangerous – both because it is purely an extension of current administration’s failed policies and because it may lead to severe consequences in the region. As proved by Nixon, Carter and Reagan and their administrations, diplomacy and facing the enemies in diplomatic talks never led to the downfall of American leadership nor its reputation. Ironically, one of McCain’s top advisers on foreign policy, Henry Kissinger – who restored diplomatic relations with China during the Mao era, shares the same views. Nevertheless, the question of whether this is only a slogan scoring additional political points or a major policy shift among the republican strategists is yet to be answered.

Unfortunately, the first debate did not precisely evaluate the credentials of respective candidates and neglected many challenges approaching America. Questions and sections of the debate did not allow any of the two to fully address the most important issues affecting the condition of America’s global position. Instead, we have been offered slogan-based polemic, which did not cover these issues efficiently. The remains are even higher expectations for VP showdown, which hopefully will be more prudently prepared.