Deep Commitment, Shallow Understanding
Republican Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin demonstrated deep commitment to combating terrorism, combined with an equally deep ignorance of the context or history of current U.S. military engagements in her first televised interview on ABC on September 11.
The interview is one of several 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 tended to be shallow and autonomic responses. She passed up several opportunities to show off signs of having followed current military engagements, or learned--as much of the country has--more about Islam, Islamism, and violent extremism in the last several years. Despite a reputation for being independent minded, she sounded much as President Bush since 2001, by describing the world as if it held one unified group of terrorists "hell-bent" on destroying America, rather than multiple, distinct insurgencies.
Palin talks tough about being decisive. Were she to become president, her ignorance would more likely leave her particularly vulnerable to advisors who do have strategic understanding and well-plotted aims in the region.
As a vice president likely to be watched closely, however, she would also 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 is likely to respond poorly to either simplistic assumptions or blanket advocacy of American aggression.
Asked about whether she believes in the Bush Doctrine (that pre-emptive military strikes are justifiable), 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.
In another exchange, over whether the United States has the right to make cross-border attacks in Pakistan, Palin seems unaware that special forces just did, drawing an extremely negative response that included a new round of flag burning. 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. There was an opportunity however: 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.
Others worry about Palin's lack of experience. I worry about her apparent lack of curiosity about the world beyond her own.
I don't mind a certain amount of inexperience in my national leaders, because managerial and other experience can be learned. In my experience, however, imagination 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.