Highlights (and Lowlights) from the Recent Republican Presidential Debates

Since we last reported on the Republican presidential campaign on December 14, there have been four debates as well as a forum hosted by Fox News. Duncan Hunter, Rudy Giuliani, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson no longer remain in the race, and while Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul have yet to formally throw in the towel, most observers believe that either Mitt Romney or John McCain will represent the GOP come November. That said, the race may be all but over by tonight, as McCain holds impressive leads in most of the states up for grabs today (Super Tuesday).

Sadly, on the nuclear and nonproliferation fronts, there is very little to report from the debates. Most of the foreign policy action centered on the merits of going to war with Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the ridiculous tiff between Romney and McCain regarding whether Romney was vociferous enough in his support of the “surge.”

In New Hampshire on January 5 (transcript here), Thompson argued that the threat of CBRN-armed terrorists might necessitate the preemptive use of military force:

We now have terrorists and various groups, al Qaeda, rogue nations in different stages of developing nuclear weapons. We must be prepared for the different kind of weaponry that we're facing. We could be attacked with a biological weapon and not even know it for a long period of time. This is a different world.

So instead of mutually assured destruction, which we lived under for a long time, it's now a world where preemption has got to be an option under the right circumstances.

In South Carolina on January 10 (transcript here), the candidates debated Iran in the context of the naval incident between American ships and Iranian fast boats in the Strait of Hormuz. According to Thompson:

Iran was clearly testing us. They took British hostages under similar circumstances and it proceeded obviously much past what happened to us, but they're testing our resolve. They know that they're dealing with a nation that's not going to put up with that sort of thing. But it's some insight as to the way that they're thinking.

Giuliani chimed in with the following:

Well, this really should give us some sort of indication that the NIE should not be interpreted as the -- the National Intelligence Estimate, where it was suggested that possibly Iran had stopped their nuclear program in 2003, high confidence that they stopped it in 2003, only moderate confidence that they haven't continued it.

I think an incident like this reminds us that we shouldn't be lulled into some false sense of confidence about Iran. We have to be very focused on the fact that Iran should not be allowed to become a nuclear power. We should make it very, very clear that we're not going to allow that, and we should go to every country that we can think of to impose serious sanctions on Iran.

McCain echoed similar sentiments:

Maybe the Iranians think we're weaker because of the NIE. Maybe the Iranians aren't really slowing their export of most lethal explosive devices into Iraq.

And Romney:

And so I believe it was a very serious act. And the Iranians continue to take acts like this, it points out that we have in Iran a very troubled nation.

Needless to say, Thompson, Giuliani, McCain, and Romney all have preconceived notions about Iran which lead them to spin every incident as evidence of Iran’s bellicosity. I doubt that recent media reports suggesting that the actions of the Iranian boats were far less threatening than originally claimed will do anything to change their views.

On the topic of Pakistan, Thompson responded to a question about widespread Pakistani discontent with President Musharraf by noting that:

They're the only Muslim nation in the world that has nuclear weapons and a nuclear capability. Our national security interest and who's hands those nuclear weapons are going to be in is an overriding interest of ours.

Finally, in California on January 30 (transcript here), Romney responded to a question about Vladimir Putin with a much more general observation about international politics:

What we have today in the world is four major, if you will, strategies at play.

One, there are the nations with the energy, like Russia. They're trying to use energy as a way to take over the world.

Then there's China, which is saying, "We're going to use communism plus sort of a Wild West form of -- of free enterprise. We're going to give nuclear weapons to -- or nuclear technology to the Iranians. We're going to buy oil from the Sudanese." You've got China.

Then you've got al Qaeda, which says, "We want to bring everybody down."

And then finally, there's us, the only major power in the world that says, "We believe in free enterprise and freedom for the individual."

As for the larger meaning of this inane quadripartite division of global politics for American grand strategy, well, I'm flummoxed...

Nuke and NonPro Highlights from Recent Republican Prez Debates

Not much to report on the nuke and nonpro front from the two recent Republican presidential debates, which largely focused instead on domestic issues. The first debate was held last Sunday at the University of Miami in Florida (transcript here), while the second debate was held on Wednesday in Iowa (transcript here).

In Florida, contrasting sharply with the numerous references to “winning” the Iraq war made by numerous candidates, the one mention of Iran came from Fred Thompson:

THOMPSON: … If we leave Iraq with our tail between our legs, we are going to enhance their ability to recruit young people who, they too, can help bring down parts of America and maybe America itself. We will leave an opening for Iran, as it, I still believe, continues to pursue a nuclear capability.

This comes nearly a week after the declassified findings of the Iran NIE was publically released, which found that Tehran ended its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.

The debate in Iowa was a little more substantive.

On the question of what the candidates could realistically accomplish if their first year as president, Hunter stressed the need for strengthening the military in the context of North Korea and Iran:

REP. HUNTER: First, you got to strengthen the U.S. military. You know, we have to look at the horizon past Iraq and Afghanistan and see the emergence of a North Korea with nuclear capability, Iran proceeding on that path despite what the NIE says, and also the emergence of communist China as a new superpower stepping in the shoes of the Soviet Union.

Paul had a different take:

REP. PAUL: Well, there's a limit of what you can do in one year, and at home it's more difficult. You would have to work with the Congress, but a commander in chief could end the war. We could bring our troops home. That would be a major event; it would be very valuable. We could be diplomatically -- we could become diplomatically credible once again around the world. Right now, today, we're not. Even our allies resent what we do.

We wouldn't have no more preemptive war. We would threaten nobody. We would not threaten Iran. Now it is proven once again Iraq didn't have the nuclear weapon, had nothing to do with 9/11. The Iranians have no nuclear weapon, according to our CIA. There's no need for us to threaten the Iranians. We could immediately turn the Navy around and bring them home, and I think this would be a major step toward peace.

The debate later briefly turned to Thompson’s earlier comments regarding the Iran NIE.

MS. WASHBURN: … Senator Thompson, you've expressed doubts that the recent report on Iran's nuclear capabilities is accurate. As president, how would you decide when to disagree with available intelligence, and then what would you do?

MR. THOMPSON: Well, that's probably the most important question that's been asked today.

We have a real problem with our intelligence community. It, along with certain parts of our military, were neglected for a long, long time in this country, and we're paying the price for it now. The fact is that nobody has any real confidence in the result that they're getting. The result you're talking about was directly contradicted by their strong beliefs just two years ago. So you've got to rebuild from the bottom up.

I think that, in the meantime, we have to rely on other people. The British are helpful to us. The Israelis sometimes are helpful to us. … In many respects, they have advancements that we don't have in terms of our intelligence capabilities. But the president cannot let … a piece of paper by a bureaucrat determine -- solely determine what his actions must be.

In other words, don’t let facts get in the way of ideology. That Thompson describes the NIE – the most authoritative intelligence assessment that expresses coordinated judgments from 16 intelligence agencies – as “a piece of paper by a bureaucrat” is striking. The lack of confidence in the intelligence community, Thompson seems to suggest, is not due to its failures involving the Iraq war and now its about-face on Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, but rather its inconsistency. Instead of changing their assessments in accordance to what the intelligence is telling them, intelligence analysts should stick to their previously held “strong beliefs,” lest the intelligence community be “rebuilt.”

Recap of Nuke and Nonpro Issues from Recent Republican Debate

It’s a little past its prime, but I thought I’d recap some key points from the Fox News-sponsored Republican presidential debate in Florida on October 21.

After lengthy battles over who is more conservative, gay marriage, abortion, health care, education, defeating Hillary Clinton, Medicare and Social Security, the debate finally turned to Russia and missile defense.

To make a long story short…

• The “first thing” Sen. John McCain would do is “make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia and Poland, and I don't care what [Putin’s] objections are to it.” (Note: The proposed radar component is set to be located in the Czech Republic, not Czechoslovakia, which split into two countries in 1993).
• Rep. Duncan Hunter supported discussing Putin’s recent proposal involving sea-based missile defenses, but, after praising a recent intercept test, also noted, “We've got to keep missile defense strong.”
• Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed with McCain, stating “we should move as quickly as we can to build missile defense.”
  

Giuliani was also later asked whether the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran worries him more than the prospect of going to war with Iran. His answer? A nuclear-armed Iran.


Provided below are the excerpted highlights of the debate as they regard to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation. Key points are bolded. The full transcript can be found here.

CAMERON: Senator McCain, it's been some time since the first debate question on foreign policy was about Russia and not the Middle East. But let's do that.

Vladimir Putin has announced just in the last 24 hours that he plans a new, quote, grandiose, nuclear weapons program to counter the U.S. missile defense system. President Bush just recently described President Putin as wily.

Are we headed back to a new Cold War, or has the Bush administration been naive in dealing with Mr. Putin?

MCCAIN: I don't know about naive, but I do know that when I looked into Mr. Putin's eyes, I saw three letters: a K, a G and a B.

And I'm not saying we will have a return of the Cold War, because Russia doesn't have the kind of capabilities, the territory nor other things. But have no doubt, the problems they are causing us are severe.

And the United Nations Security Council assisting Iran as they continue to develop nuclear weapons, as he continues to consolidate power as he attempts to restore the old Russian empire.

And he bullies his neighbors and he wants to get a control of the energy supply of Western Europe.

This is a dangerous person. And he has to understand that there's a cost to some of his actions.

And the first thing I would do is make sure that we have a missile defense system in place in Czechoslovakia and Poland, and I don't care what his objections are to it.

And he's going to cause us to set up a league of democracies to address issues from Darfur to Burma to Iran and others, because he and the Chinese are blocking meaningful action to keep us in a peaceful world in the United Nations.

It's going to be some tough times ahead.

CAMERON: Congressman Hunter, did you have a comment there?

HUNTER: Yes, just one comment.

You know, President Putin did give us one opening, and I think we should exploit it. And that is that he offered to work with us on sea-based missile defenses. The throat of the -- of missiles launched from Iran at western Europe would go over the Black Sea.

I think we should undertake an initiative with Putin's people and discuss the prospects of putting our Aegis missile defense cruisers in the Black Sea, ask them if they're interested in an partnership that would protect Western Europe, also protect us.

But, lastly, you know last month, we had a successful intercept above the Pacific Ocean with a missile coming out from Alaska with an interceptor coming up from Vandenberg. And we hit it 100 miles above the surface of the Earth. That was a demonstration of the new success of what Ronald Reagan started with missile defense. We've got to keep missile defense strong.

CAMERON: Mayor Giuliani, do you agree with the idea that now is the time to start working with Russia on missile security?

GIULIANI: You know, I think now is the time to make it clear to Putin that America can speak softly and carry a big stick. We want to engage...

We want to engage Russia. We want to continue to commercially engage them.

But at the same time, the senator is absolutely right; we should move as quickly as we can to build missile defense.

I think this would be a heck of a good time to expand NATO. NATO needs a little revitalization. I think we could look to countries like Australia; we could look to Japan; we could look to expand it, geographically.

It's certainly the time to make sure we shore up our relationships with the Eastern European countries that have emerged into being free market countries, democracies.

Ukraine isn't quite there yet. Ukraine is in a struggle, internally. They need us. They need us to support them to -- they'd be a good hedge against Russia.

And at the same time, I think we should make it very, very clear that we understand that we can both engage a country, commercially, like we are doing with Russia, or at the same time, we can be very, very firm in our own defense.

Ronald Reagan gave us the best answer to how to deal with these situations.

The answer is a very, very strong military that no other country on earth would ever consider challenging.

According to Gorbachev, in his book, he says that Ronald Reagan spent the Soviets out of existence. Right now, an increase in military spending, increasing the size of our military in all aspects in a sensible way, would send a heck of a signal both to Russia and to China to not think about challenging us down the road.

[snip]

GOLER: Mayor Giuliani, given our experience in Iraq, does the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iraq worry you more than the prospect of going to war with Iran?

GIULIANI: There's no question that the idea of going to war with Iran, or even taking military action against Iran would be very dangerous. It would be something you would not want to do. It would be a last resort.

But if you're asking me the question, which is more dangerous, a nuclear-armed Iran is more dangerous.

And it should be the clear position of the United States government that we will not allow them to become -- to become nuclear.

And I honestly believe -- and, again, I think this comes from the wisdom of Ronald Reagan -- if we can be clear about this, and our allies can understand this, and China and Russia can understand that we would take action to stop them from becoming nuclear, in our judgment, you know, when that has to happen, if they thought we were very serious about that, I think the chance of the sanctions working -- direct, indirect, disinvestment from Iran, I think the sanctions working would work much more effectively.

China and Russia have, obviously, economic interests in dealing with Iran. What they have to see is that America would act. And if America acted, that would be inconsistent with what would be good for them.

New YouTube video on Republican candidates’ nuclear threats

Council for a Livable World released a YouTube video mash-up this week highlighting statements made by several Republican presidential candidates threatening the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. Check it out.

The link for the video mash-up is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd4MKti8plo

For other notable moments, go to Kyle’s earlier posts on the June 5 Republican debate and his other post on the June 3 Democratic debate.

Notable non-nonproliferation quotes from the Republican debate on June 5 - Nuclear table piece

A couple days ago we highlighted the salient nonproliferation quotes from the June 3 Democratic debates in New Hampshire, here. There was nothing exceptional.

The Republican debate from June 5 was a bit spicier: Wolf Blitzer directly asked the candidates: "If it came down to a preemptive U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facility, if necessary would you authorize as president the use of tactical nuclear weapons?"

This is a notable difference from the Democratic debates, where Wolf asked the candidates if they would attack Iran, but never specified whether such an attack would use nuclear or conventional weaponry. Here is what the Republican's had to say:

Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA):

I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges. When the Osirak reactor that was hit `86, when the six F-18s came over the horizon and knocked that out, they didn’t need anything but conventional weapons. Probably it’s going to take a little more than that. I don’t think it’s going to take tactical nukes.

Making a comparison between the 1980 Osirak strike in Iraq and taking out Iran's nuclear infrastructure today is a long stretch: the Osirak reactor was a single open target, while Iran's nuclear sites today are dispersed throughout the country, often buried, and often located in populated areas. The use of nuclear weapons against Iran would have incredibly harmful ramifications in that it would endanger civilian populations, without guaranteeing any significant impact against Iran's nuclear progress.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R):

Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power. I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can’t rule out anything and you shouldn’t take any option off the table.

Former Governor Jim Gilmore (R-VA):

With respect to Iran, the policy I would follow would be dual. Number one, we need to work with our European allies in order to put in appropriate sanctions. We need to communicate directly with the Iranians that we are going to offer them an opportunity to work with us. But we’re also going to say that having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. They need to understand it. And all options are on the table by the United States in that instance.

Ultimately these three candidates pretty much gave the party line: we could mess you up with conventional weapons, but if you really piss us off we may just pull out the big guns. With regards to the potential of Giuliani, Gilmore, or Hunter ever actually using nukes, it is doubtful; they all say they want to keep nukes on the table, but much like a decorative table piece: while it looks good and is nice to talk about, nobody is ever actually going to bite into that plastic fruit.

There was a moment to relax toward the end when Congressman Paul was asked, "what’s the most pressing moral issue in the United States right now?"

I think it is the acceptance just recently that we now promote preemptive war. I do not believe that’s part of the American tradition. We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just- war theory of Christianity. And now, tonight, we hear that we’re not even willing to remove from the table a preemptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security.

Hrm.