Blogging on the Democratic party's primary debate (Updated)
In this post I won't critique or focus too much on the issues dealt with in the debate and the questions asked so far. However, what has prompted me to write this after a lull of almost a month is this: It's 8:07 pm right now, an hour into the debate, and this is the first question by Brian Williams (to Sen. Clinton) on the War on Terror. None of the candidates has even mentioned it, even with regard to Iraq and the Middle East.
I was a bit disappointed with someone I respect greatly, Sen. Joseph Biden. Why? When asked
"Senator Biden, from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, what three nations, other than Iraq, represent, to you, the biggest threat to the United States?
His answer was: The biggest threat to the United States is, right now, North Korea.
Iran not as big a threat, but a long-term threat.
And quite frankly, the tendency of Putin to move in a totalitarian direction, which would unhinge all that's going on positively in Europe.
To be fair, this is a good answer, however, I did not like either the thrust of the question which ignored to a large extent the biggest threat that we currently face, al Qaeda and the Islamist Jihadist movement it represents, but I also expected Sen. Biden to correct it by bringing up the concept of the threat posed by non-state groups such as al Qaeda. Perhaps I'm demanding too much, but given the impact and damage that this group has had with its system perturbation, it should not be ignored nor placed below threats that emanate from nation-states. Why am I coming down so hard on this issue, because Republicans have done a pretty good job of arguing that they understand the nature of the post-9/11 world, while the democrats do not. While I disagree that Republicans, particularly this president, really understand the threats of the post-9/11 world, I do think that Democrats do themselves no favor by avoiding, or not adequately demonstrating that they understand that non-state threats such as al Qaeda are out there and have to be dealt with.
Sen. Obama came close to mentioning al Qaeda, but he stopped short and mentioned only the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. None of the other candidates, who answered this question, came close to mentioning al Qaeda as one of the biggest threats facing our country.
The two questions so far asked on al Qaeda and the GWOT are on Mayor Giuliani's comment on al Qaeda, and whether there even exists a war on terror. So far, the answers have not impressed me, and fill me with a sense of gloom since the answers are unlikely to shake the belief among those of us who are serious about our nation's security that the Democrats just don't get it. (I say this as a Democrat, as someone who has looked forward to this debate and who has leaned favorable to Sen. Biden, Sen. Obama, and Sen. Clinton.
I should mention that as I finished this post, Sen. Clinton finally addressed the issue of al Qaeda and said she supported the president when he went after al Qaeda, but (and paraphrasing here)she drew the line when he went after a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11 (read Iraq).
Finally, I should say as a means of clarification, when I criticize the Democrats for not focusing on al Qaeda or the War on Terror, I do so mostly because I want an alternative to this administration's policies with regard to the most important issue facing our country. We were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11/2001, that is the main reason we went into Afghanistan, and a war we cannot withdraw from or end our engagement in as easily or quickly as we can (and even this is debatable) from Iraq. We need an alternative to the bluster of the present administration and so far (1 hour and 24 minutes into the debate) they have all failed to provide one.
Update
I just wanted to note that Sen. Biden did say something that did remind me of why I respect him. When Rep. Kucinich and Mike Gravel were talking about peace and end to war, Sen. Biden was almost alone in saying, stop the "happy talk," the fact is that there are times when war is needed, Afghanistan was justified, Darfur is justified, there's happy talk and there's real life. He also seemed to be channeling Barnett, when he said
" Think of the folly of what this administration has acted on. It has said, "By the way, give up your weapons, the very thing that's us from attacking you. And once you give them up, then we're going to take you out."
That's the logic of this administration. That's why we've lost respect all over the world."
All in all the debate didn't offer much, and most times candidates seemed to be repeating talking points. However, I do think that the debate did give 2nd tier candidates like Sen. Biden, Sen. Dodd and Gov. Richardson a chance to show what they were about. Despite my criticism of Sen. Biden, I do think he helped his image greatly. Hopefully his numbers will start climbing soon.
Watching MSNBC, it seems clear that Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama are seen as having lost in this debate. Sen. Obama fumbled the question of what he would do if two American cities were attacked and we knew it was al Qaeda, while Sen. Clinton nailed it by saying she would retaliate. Sen. Edwards, fumbled on the question of his $400 haircut and generally did not rise to the challenge.
Before ending, I just want to point out that even in the question of what they would do if we were attacked again, Sen. Clinton's response that she would retaliate is based on the notion that there's a physical place where we can attack. In truth, the answer is more complicated, because were we attacked, a clear target would become the NWFP in Pakistan, which if carried out would guarantee the collapse of the Musharaf regime. That is why I wanted more of a discussion on al Qaeda and non-state threats, since such a discussion would have brought this important aspect of the war to bear, and would have allowed the candidates perhaps a better way to frame the issue and thereby demonstrate that they truly understand national security in the post-9/11 world.
