Do presidential hopefuls know what's going on?

During the recent US Republican Party presidential candidates’ debate, critics were quick to attack party hopeful Michele Bachmann for what appeared to be a slight mix up over whether Libya is part of Africa or not.

In her attempt to criticise President Barack Obama’s foreign policy, Bachmann instead highlighted her limited knowledge of geography. “The president, he put us in Libya. He is now putting us in Africa,” Bachmann said. She was referring to Obama’s recent announcement that he will be sending 100 US troops to Uganda to help authorities there battle rebels from the Lord’s Resistance Army. Her statement implied that Libya, a North African state, was not part of Africa. The US earlier this year joined its Nato allies in a military campaign that helped to topple long-time dictator Muammar Gadhafi, who was finally killed by rebels late last week.

Bachmann’s mix up may have been a simple mistake. People make mistakes. But what the world should be concerned with is the stance these candidates take on matters concerning national security and foreign affairs. How the US deals with these issues affects us all.

In the early part of the ongoing debate among the Republican presidential hopefuls, there were concerns that the candidates were not saying enough about these issues. Now that they are talking, some in the US are thinking that it might be better if they hadn’t opened their mouths at all.

“Certainly, the Republican hopefuls have put to rest any lingering notion that their party is the one to trust with the nation’s security,” said a recent editorial from the New York Times.

“The United States is involved in two wars, with more than 100,000 troops overseas. China is rising, relations with Pakistan are plummeting, and Iran and North Korea are advancing their nuclear programmes. The Middle East is in turmoil. Yet the candidates offer largely bad analysis and worse solutions, nothing that suggests real understanding or new ideas,” the editorial continued.

Some have been harking back to the Reagan-era and talk about American leadership. But the Cold War is over and a new world order has been in the making for some time, with pockets of disturbance and hot spots all over the place.

On Afghanistan, the candidates are stuck between pulling troops out quickly and aggressively pushing to win victory – whatever that means. They all suggest that Obama is a weak leader but can’t really explain why they think that way.

But considering the mess of these two wars generated by the previous Republican administration, not to mention the loss of America’s political capital, Obama is doing a hell of a job in picking up the pieces.

Take Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, and one of the leading Republican candidates, for example. When asked what he would do if the Taleban took control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, he mumbled his way through several sentences and ended up accusing the Obama administration of refusing to sell F-16s to India. But wasn’t it India who didn’t want the jet fighters in the first place?

All candidates reject “military adventurism” – a sensible move for a society fatigued by wars – but still talk tough about taking the fight to “enemies” before they hit America. This is one big blurry position. The American people, as well as the world, need a clearer picture on this very disturbing issue.

Perhaps candidate Herman Cain summed up this attitude best: “A leader” doesn’t need to know the names of the people who run places like “Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan”, dismissing Uzbekistan as some insignificant country.

One wonders if Cain knows where Uzbekistan is, or that the country is an important logistical point for American forces in Afghanistan. Former US President George W Bush, in his first major speech after the September 11 attacks, singled out Uzbekistan as his new best friend because of this. Cain should also know that Uzbekistan’s President Islam Karimov is an autocrat with a poor human rights record.

There are many other items on the table – improving trade relations with China (as a partner or competitor?), ensuring that the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa move towards democracy, and recalibrating the relationship with Pakistan (after some serious accusations about Islamabad’s alleged foot-dragging in the war on terror). The American voters and the world deserve some thoughtful answers from all the presidential candidates.