The vacation from hell is about to end: Notes on the presidential debate

1.

In a memorable article, Charles Krauthammer once called the Bill Clinton era in the White House a “vacation from history.” When he wrote that article, in the middle of the following decade, the vacation was long over. American soldiers were fighting in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and reality had already dawned on America. It realized that “viewing the world through the narrow legalist lens of liberal internationalism” and “drafting and signing treaty after useless treaty on such things as biological, chemical and nuclear weapons” makes little difference in the real world.

But today American foreign policy is, again, vacationing. To Clinton’s credit – that is, Bill Clinton – his vacation was cheerier, more entertaining, more charming than that of the 2016 election cycle. To Donald Trump’s credit, today’s vacation seems to be shorter. This is a vacation that Hollywood would probably tag something like “a vacation from hell,” but it's one that will not last for eight years – more like eight months.

2.

The Presidential debate yesterday was a prime example of this spirit of a soon-ending vacation, alternating between things as unserious as “locker room” maneuvers and as serious as comparisons between the suffering in Aleppo and the Holocaust. In a short while, one of the two candidates – possibly Clinton – will meet the need to put behind the juvenile habits of the campaign trail, and begin dealing with real problems.

So a lot of attention was paid since yesterday to the nasty nature of the debate, and it was a nasty one. But it was not without substance. The part of the debate that focused on Syria was substantial. It exposed the discrepancies between the two candidates on a meaningful policy issue, and also the problems both of them have in presenting a coherent approach to this issue.

In defense of both Trump and (to a lesser degree) Clinton, the Syria mess is not of their doing. The next American president will face a situation in Syria that is highly problematic – the result of an incompetent policy on part of the Obama administration.

3.

Trump concluded that Aleppo “basically has fallen.” As sad as this sounds, he is probably being more realistic in this assessment than his opponent (Clinton did not disagree with him on this point – but was trying to make the impression that things can still be done). Trump’s approach to Syria is, in fact, a continuation of the Obama policy – that is, to abandon Syria. Of course, Trump would rightly say that Obama complicated Syria and made it almost impossible for the US to be more active in this region.

Clinton gives an answer on Syria that is more soothing to the ear of all the people who are horrified by what’s going on in Syria – that is, all moral people. She still wants to do something. She still hopes to influence Syria’s future. But her policy prescription is vague. Trump is clear – I will do nothing and let Assad stay and Russia rule. Clinton is unclear. Clinton “advocate(s) today a no-fly zone and safe zones,” but doesn’t explain how such “zones” can be established when the Russians have already deployed sophisticated missiles in Syria and threaten to shoot down any airplane that enters the area since “any missile or air strikes on the territory controlled by the Syrian government will create a clear threat to Russian servicemen.”

4.

The candidates also spoke about Iran. Clinton offered her regular, somewhat cautious defense of the deal: “we got a treaty reducing nuclear weapons. It’s how we got the sanctions on Iran that put a lid on the Iranian nuclear program without firing a single shot.” Trump offered his regular blunt attack on the deal: “when I look at the Iran deal and how bad a deal it is for us, it’s a one-sided transaction where we’re giving back $150 billion to a terrorist state.”

With Iran, both candidates seem to adopt Trump’s approach to Syria – good or bad, the Iran deal is a done deal. Not one of them offered any indication that they are going to reconsider the parameters of the deal or to somehow strengthen its capacity to tame Iran’s behavior. Trump, in a bizarre sort of way, also seems to follow some of Obama’s logic concerning the considerations the US makes as it deals with Iran. “Russia is killing ISIS. And Iran is killing ISIS. And those three have now lined up because of our weak foreign policy,” he said. That is to say: according to Trump yesterday, and I read the transcript twice, a supposedly bad thing – weak foreign policy – brought about a supposedly good result – a fight against ISIS that does not involve the US.

5.

Clinton also made an interesting statement concerning her support for an effort to probe “war crimes committed by the Syrians and the Russians and try to hold them accountable.” Going back to the “holiday from history” theme, these words sound familiar. They are reminiscent of the unrealistic belief in international processes and institutions that were common during the Clinton and the Obama administration.

Surely, Clinton knows better. She knows that no probe against the Russians is feasible. She knows Russia is too strong to be investigated. Vladimir Putin is no Slobodan Milosevic – he will not be put on trial for enabling a massacre. He is also not Boris Yeltsin, who opposed the Kosovo war but was not strong enough in his opposition to try and prevent it.