Palin on Combating Global Terrorism
Deep Commitment, Shallow Understanding
Republican Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin demonstrated deep commitment to combating terrorism, coupled with a strikingly shallow understanding of international relations and current military engagements, in her first televised interview on ABC on September 11.
The interview was one of several to be aired by ABC in September. In the first, Charles Gibson questioned Palin on Iraq, Iran, and other foreign policy issues.
Palin's answers to these questions appeared to be shallow and autonomic, which was unfortunate, because she passed up opportunities to share with the country--and the world--what she knows and how she conceives foreign policy and national security. Despite a reputation for being independent minded, Palin sounded much as President Bush has since 2001 when she repeatedly described the Middle East and Central Asia as if it held one unified group of terrorists "hell-bent" on destroying America, rather than multiple, distinct actors and conflicts.
This mashing together of different groups has not served the United States well. Among other issues, using a "war on terror" lens to view specific local issues (not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Philippines and Indonesia, for example) does not produce locally effective policies. Also, when the current administration describes distinct conflicts as a function of a vague, all encompassing terrorist threat, it reflects extremely badly on the United States--it is heard as ideological and aggressive and, sorry to say, simply ignorant.
Palin described herself, above all, as so capable that she could make a decision without blinking. Were she to become president, her ignorance would more likely leave her particularly vulnerable to advisers who do have strategic understanding and well-plotted aims in the region.
As a vice president likely to be watched closely, Palin would play a role that makes how she speaks important. She would inevitably serve as an important ambassador of American intentions in the broader world. A great deal of that world has turned hostile to the United States and will respond poorly to either simplistic assumptions or blanket advocacy of American aggression.
Asked about whether she believes in the Bush Doctrine, Palin responded:
I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though.
Granting Palin the fact that words spoken spontaneously do not always sound so logical once transcribed, her first words on national security reveal that she has little pre-existing sense of words such as terrorism (which includes violence or the threat of violence), and extremism. Her dramatic rhetoric was in keeping with McCain's (against which a similar charge of fuzziness could be leveled).
In another exchange over whether the United States has the right to make cross-border attacks in Pakistan, Palin seemed completely unaware that Special Operations Forces just did, drawing a negative response among Pakistan's leadership and on the street, with such vehemence that new rounds of American flag burning have commenced. The entire exchange on Pakistan:
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan, from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: As for our right to invade, we’re going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world, where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be and military strike a last option.
GIBSON: But governor, I am asking you, do we have the right, in your mind, to go across the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink, Charlie. In making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes, that you think we have the right to go aoss the border, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government? To go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell-bent on destroying America, and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.
In response to two different questions, Palin answers simply that there are terrorists and that the United States maintains the right to deal with them as it sees fit. Another potential opportunity lost: to consider the legal ramifications of invading sovereign countries; the impact of military moves; alternative options at the Afghanistan / Pakistan border; or the difficulties of constructing such options. She passed up these opportunities.
Palin's experience, especially in foreign policy, has been of concern to some. There is a more worrying issue however, and it is her apparent lack of curiosity, or real interest, about the world beyond her own.
Experience can be learned. But imagination, generally, cannot, and imagination is the true basis for reform.
To reform, after all, is simply to make something new out of what we have. To do that, our national leaders must understand well the ingredients of the world we have, and be able to imagine them in a new way.
Learn more about Alaska Governor Palin's views and background:
- Profile of Sarah Palin (Justin Quinn, U.S. Conservative Politics Guide)
- McCain, Palin Contradict Gen. Petraeus (Deborah White, U.S. Liberal Politics Guide)
- Palin's Nomination Acceptance Speech
- Sarah Palin, Polarizing American Views (Women's Issues Guide)