The Foreign Policy Debate: What did we learn about U.S. Foreign Policy?

If you watched the third and final debate of the 2012 Presidential Election, then you saw some primary sourcing for what U.S. foreign policy has been over the past four years and what it might become in the next four, but what did we actually learn? A major talking point of the debate was the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East. Candidates were asked if an Iranian strike against Israel would be equivalent to a strike on the United States itself. Both candidates were able to walk around the question by stating they will stand with Israel in such a case, but never directly answer if it would be considered an attack against America. Mitt Romney was also asked the strange question of how he would react to an Israeli surprise preemptive strike against Iran, which he quickly refuted was not possible because our allies in Israel would under almost no circumstances authorize a preemptive strike without consulting to the U.S. first.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the debate was the portion dedicated to the Obama administration's use of drones in the Middle East. Basically the Obama administration has eliminated hundreds of Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives through the use of predator drone strikes — playing the role of judge, jury, and executioner. When asked about the U.S. predator drone program, Romney almost couldn't contain his support for the President's use of drones — warranting the question, will the American people even have a say in the uses and practices of this covert warfare in the future? The likely answer to that question, and what we have presumptively learned from the debate is no. The final call on drone strikes for now will be left to the one and only commander-in-chief. And from the position the two possible candidates took, it seems the commander-in-chief's use of drone warfare is likely far from over.