"Heartbeat-Away": Palin-Biden on the Middle East

I had the pleasure of watching the Palin-Biden debate at 3 a.m. Cairo time today with a half-dozen high schoolers of different nationalities. They had some interesting observations that coincided with some of mine--generally, they were much more impressed with the latter than the former. Here's my overall take on the debate as seen from my perch in Egypt:

As in the McCain-Obama debate on foreign policy, the match-up highlighted the sharp differences in outlook and approach to Middle East issues that would be taken by a McCain or Obama administration. The vice presidential debate contrasted the experiences and styles of the candidates, too. Biden came off as a distinguished elder statesman, steeped in experience and knowledge. Palin came off as well spoken in her rhetoric and ability to tick off McCain's talking points, but displayed no depth of understanding on any Middle East issue. Indeed, at times she seemed to be trying to make a virtue of her inexperience, often referring to herself in hockey mom lingo as a "Main Streeter" and "Washington outsider," "someone just not used to the way you guys operate." In general, Biden expressed recognition for complexity and nuance in the Middle East, while Palin was prone to flag waving and enemy baiting that veered toward jingoism.

On the issues, I didn't hear anything new or surprising, but the positions and rhetoric we heard once again revealed the sharp differences in outlook and approach. Palin said our "freedom is always just one generation away from extinction," railed against America's enemies like Ahmadinejad and advocated sanctions on them; Biden promised a "fundamental change" in foreign policy, emphasized the need for diplomacy with Iran and said Obama would reject the "Bush Doctrine of preemption and regime change and replace it with a doctrine of prevention and cooperation." Palin stressed the need to stay in Iraq and "win" the war there and in Afghanistan; Biden rolled out Obama's 16-month pull-out plan. Palin insisted that Iraq is the central front of the war on terrorism; Biden stressed the need to fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Palin was broadly supportive of Bush's Middle East policies; Biden called them an "abject failure." Palin acknowledged "blunders" by the Bush administration though resisted "looking backwards"; Biden repeatedly critiqued Bush's failures and said "let's get straight who has been right and wrong." Palin was cheerleading in her enthusiasm for Israel; Biden, while calling himself a passionate supporter, avoided Palin's preening. The only basic areas of agreement seemed to be their strong support for Israel and for a U.S.-supported no-fly zone to stop "genocide" in Darfur.

On Iraq:

Both candidates have sons deployed to Iraq.

Palin, as Biden correctly said, didn't articulate a plan for Iraq or otherwise offer any considered blueprint for success, sticking to platitudes about winning. "We do have a plan for withdrawal," she said. "We don't need early withdrawal out of Iraq. We cannot afford to lose there or we're going to be no better off in the war in Afghanistan either. We have got to win in Iraq. And with the surge that has worked we're now down to pre-surge numbers in Iraq. That's where we can be... We cannot afford to lose against al Qaeda and the Shia extremists who are still there, still fighting us, but we're getting closer and closer to victory. And it would be a travesty if we quit now in Iraq." On McCain's Iraq policy, she said: "He will know how to implement the strategies, working with our commanders and listening to what they have to say, taking the politics out of these war issues. He'll know how to win a war... We have got to win the wars." As for the light at the end of the tunnel, "Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq and that is not what our troops need to hear today, that's for sure. We'll know when we're finished in Iraq when the Iraqi government can govern its people and when the Iraqi security forces can secure its people. And our commanders on the ground will tell us when those conditions have been met... we are getting closer and closer to that point, that victory that's within sight."

Biden avoided victory talk and put his ticket's pull-out plan concretely: "Barack Obama offered a clear plan. Shift responsibility to Iraqis over the next 16 months. Draw down our combat troops...You've got to have a time line to draw down the troops and shift responsibility to the Iraqis... We're spending $10 billion a month while Iraqis have an $80 billion surplus. Barack says it's time for them to spend their own money and have the 400,000 military we trained for them begin to take their own responsibility and gradually over 16 months, withdrawal... this is a fundamental difference between us. We'll end this war. For John McCain, there's no end in sight to end this war. We will end this war."

In summary, Palin presented a vague outlook for "victory" in Iraq that is far too optimistic, while Biden offered a clear plan for a U.S. withdrawal without explaining possible negative repercussions and how Obama would deal with them.

On Iran:

Both candidates agreed that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would be a "dangerous" development.

Palin dwelled on the threat Iran posed to Israel and Ahmadinejad's anti-Israel statements, calling Iran's president "not sane or stable." "They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period," she said. Palin ridiculed Obama for saying he would talk to the leaders of Iran and other countries without setting pre-conditions, saying that it would be naive, bad judgement and dangerous. Perhaps she was seeking to have it both ways, yet Palin went on to say, "Diplomacy is very important. First and foremost, that is what we would engage in. But diplomacy is hard work by serious people. It's lining out clear objectives and having your friends and your allies ready to back you up there and have sanctions lined up before any kind of presidential summit would take place."

Biden avoided castigating detractors like Ahmadinejad, and sought to explain nuances in Iran by pointing out the the Iranian president was not the leader who controlled the country's security apparatus. He pointed out that even the Bush administration had opened a dialogue between senior U.S. and Iranian diplomats. Biden explained: "Our friends and allies have been saying, 'Sit down. Talk. Talk. Talk.' Our friends and allies have been saying that, five secretaries of state, three of them Republicans. If we don't go the extra mile on diplomacy, what makes you think the allies are going to sit with us?"

Palin aligned herself with the familiar yet increasingly discredited U.S. policy of demonizing Iranian leaders as radicals who could never be reasoned with and emphasizing American pressure rather than diplomacy to end the nuclear standoff. Biden presented the "realist" view that has gradually been gaining more credence, yet which is nonetheless still a politically risky, courageous position to take, proposing that concerted diplomacy should be tried in the belief it could produce results.

On Israel-Palestine:

Both candidates expressed the strong support for Israel that is typical for American politicians.

Palin enunciated little actual understanding of the conflict, tending to throw out platitudes like "Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East." She painted Bush as a leader who tried to "forge that peace" and equated his administration's mistakes with those of past presidents. She said she supported a "two-state solution," that Israel has a "track record" of making peace, and that "it's got to be a commitment of the United States of America... I can promise you, in a McCain-Palin administration, that commitment is there to work with our friends in Israel." Echoing a position taken by McCain and perennially by many American politicians, she advocated moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

Biden opened his comments by saying "no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion." He did not mention moving the American embassy to Jerusalem, or call for the city to remain "undivided," as McCain and Obama have both done. He went on to say, however, "it has been an abject failure, this administration's policy" in the Arab-Israeli conflict. He suggested that Bush waited too long to mediate Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, mistakenly pressed for Palestinian elections that were won by Hamas and failed to prevent Hizballah from scoring a major political victory in Lebanon. Indicating that Obama will be more active in promoting peace negotiations, Biden said "We will change this policy with thoughtful, real, live diplomacy."

Neither candidate went into any detail about how to resolve the conflict, although Palin's support for Israel was expressed with the simplistic enthusiasm of a hockey mom booster, while Biden showed a sober appreciation for the complexities of the region.

On the next vice president's influence on foreign policy:

It seems we will not be getting another Dick Cheney regardless of who is elected. Biden explained that while he would not have a specific "portfolio," Obama "wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he'll be making, I'll be sitting in the room to give my best advice. He's president, not me, I'll give my best advice." Given Biden's high profile in U.S. foreign policy, that means he'll have a key role in Middle East policy decisions. Palin, on the other hand, seems to indicate, not surprisingly, given her total lack of foreign policy experience, that she'll be out of the foreign policy loop. She said that McCain "tapped me" to lead in the areas of "energy independence in America and reform of government over all, and then working with families of children with special needs."

The debate showed that Biden is clearly equipped with the foreign policy know-how required to deal with the dangerous, complex problems of the Middle East. It showed that Palin, despite her admirable enthusiasm, quick study of the issues and connection to America's heartland, is clearly not. A key question about Palin that does not apply to Biden is, What happens to American foreign policy should McCain become unable to govern and she becomes president?

-By Scott MacLeod/Cairo