9 foreign policy points Republicans should address at the debate
|
Version 0 of 1. The Republican presidential candidates will have at it in their second debate Wednesday night on CNN, and it’s expected that much of the debate will focus on foreign policy. Here are nine questions that should be asked of the candidates given the variety of foreign policy challenges they will face in the next four years. 1. Many of you have claimed the Obama administration has not “done enough” in its war against Isis, despite the fact that the US has dropped tens of thousands of bombs on Iraq and Syria in the last year. Does your plan to defeat Isis include sending US ground troops into Iraq and/or Syria? If so, how many? 2. Some Republicans have suggested that to “solve” the refugee crisis in Syria, we should have bombed the Assad regime in 2012, or we should increase our bombing of the country now. How would adding more bombing to a country that is already devastated by airstrikes help the refugee situation? And if the US helps overthrow Assad, what is the exit strategy? 3. On Sunday, the New York Times detailed how Saudi Arabia, a close US ally, is indiscriminately bombing Yemen and is responsible for thousands of civilian deaths in the past few months in what many think amounts to war crimes. They are hitting these civilians with American made fighter jets and cluster bombs, and are using US military intelligence and logistical assistance. Do you think the United States bears responsibility for these heinous crimes, and do you think Congress should investigate? 4. According to this chart based on data from the UN, the United States is taking in fewer refugees per 1,000 people than almost all other countries. Do you think the United States has a moral and humanitarian obligation to take in refugees from war-torn countries, given that its policies in the Middle East over the past decade have contributed to the region’s destabilization? 5. Many of the Republican candidates have said they will “rip up” the Iran deal on day one of their administration. How will this strategy not completely backfire, considering all other nations party to this deal have said they will still abide by it and lift their sanctions on Iran, and Iran will be able to avoid all of its obligations under the deal at the same time? 6. The Obama administration claims that the authorization of military force against al-Qaeda qualifies as legal authorization to also go to war against Isis, despite the fact that the two groups are enemies, Isis did not exist at the time of the authorization’s enactment, and the Isis war is being conducted in multiple countries that are not Afghanistan. Do you think it’s illegal for the Obama administration – or your administration – to wage a years-long war without explicit authorization from Congress, like the Constitution requires? 7. Both political parties seem to agree that cyber attacks from countries like China pose a threat to US national and economic security. Given this threat, do you think it’s wise of the United States government to mandate the US tech companies purposefully weaken encryption standards to facilitate law enforcement surveillance requests, when virtually all computer scientists agree that will create a massive and unnecessary cybersecurity vulnerability that could be exploited by criminals and our adversaries? 8. In a recent classified study, the CIA – which has a 67-year history of arming opposition groups – concluded that arming rebel armies rarely works and oftentimes ends in disaster. Given these facts, why do you believe that arming more Syrian rebels can work, especially given that of the few that we have have already armed, many have been captured or killed? 9. Monday was the 14th anniversary of the Authorization of Military Force against al-Qaeda, which led to the official start of the Afghanistan War. While President Obama claimed the combat mission there was “over” in December, fighting by the US military has only been increasing in recent months. Given how many thousands of American lives have been lost and the trillions of dollars we’ve spent, how much longer should US troops keep fighting in Afghanistan? One year? Five years? What if any sort of “progress” takes another decade or two? |