At the very first Republican presidential debate, on May 6 in Greenville, South Carolina, a virtually unknown candidate named Herman Cain was asked what he would do in Afghanistan if he became president. Cain famously said he didn’t know, because “it’s not clear what the mission is.” Cain explained that he would form a policy as president only after consulting military commanders and experts.
Fast forward six months to Saturday night and another debate in South Carolina, this one at Wofford College in Spartanburg. Cain, now the frontrunner, or at least co-frontrunner, for the Republican nomination, was again asked about Afghanistan — this time what he would do about attacks on U.S. forces coming from Pakistan. And again he didn’t know, repeating his plan to rely on military commanders and experts.
“That is a decision that I would make after consulting with the commanders on the ground, our intelligence sources, after having discussions with Pakistan, discussions with Afghanistan, and here’s why,” Cain said. “It is unclear where we stand with Afghanistan…as president, I will make sure that the mission is clear and the definition of victory is clear.”
Earlier in the debate, Cain was asked a more general question about his oft-stated intention to listen to U.S. commanders on the ground. Would those commanders always be right? “How will you know when you should overrule your generals?” asked CBS moderator Scott Pelley. Cain said he would hire good staff people to help him make decisions. “The approach to making a critical decision, first make sure that you surround yourself with the right people,” he said. “And I feel that I’ll be able to make that assessment when we put together the cabinet and all of the people from the military, et cetera.”
Finally, when asked about the Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation techniques,” which critics called torture, Cain said that while he did not approve of torture, “I would trust the judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture and what is not torture.”
By the end of the debate, Cain, as he has many times in the campaign, left viewers with the impression that his foreign policy would be to hire good people to tell him what his foreign policy should be.
Everyone knew that the format of Saturday night’s debate — devoted exclusively to foreign affairs and dubbed the “Commander-in-Chief debate” by CBS — did not favor Cain. The former head of Godfather’s Pizza has no experience in foreign policy. His rise in the polls has been as a result of his 9-9-9 tax plan and his own enormous personal appeal as a candidate. In past debates, Cain has sometimes seemed to answer every question by bringing the subject around to 9-9-9. That wasn’t an option in Spartanburg, and Cain never mentioned his signature proposal. He was on unfamiliar ground.
It showed. As the frontrunner, Cain got the evening’s first question, on what he would do to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Given the recent International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran’s nuclear program, it was perhaps the most expected question of the night. Cain had a solid enough answer, but he appeared to take U.S. military action off the table — something neither his GOP adversaries nor President Obama has done — when he said, “The only way you stop them is through economic means.” The only military option he discussed was the possibility of placing U.S. missile defense warships near Iran “in the event that they were able to fire a ballistic missile.” Of course, that would happen after Iran acquired not only a nuclear capability but also the capability to deliver a nuclear weapon.
Will such answers hurt Cain? Perhaps, but it’s also possible the debate will have little effect on his standing. Cain’s support until now has been based on his stands on domestic issues, and there is some indication that voters all along have had little faith in his ability to run America’s foreign policy. For example, in preparation for the debate, CBS conducted a poll asking which candidate is most qualified to be commander-in-chief. Cain came in a weak third, well behind Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. CBS also asked which candidate voters most trusted to handle an international crisis; Cain was a weak fourth, behind Romney, Gingrich, and Rick Perry.
Cain will get another shot at the questions soon, because it just so happens that the next GOP debate, on November 22 sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and CNN, will also be devoted entirely to foreign policy. After a string of debates in which he relied heavily on 9-9-9, Cain is facing two in a row in which he can’t cite his signature proposal. Also, foreign policy debates have a sense of gravity that domestic discussions don’t have, so Cain is less able to rely on the sense of humor that is so appealing to supporters. So there’s little doubt Cain will be looking forward to the next all-topics debate. But that won’t happen until December 10, when the candidates begin a series of three debates in Iowa. For Cain, that could be a long time to wait.
