While John McCain is an ardent of expanding American exploration of space, and earlier this year released a point-by-point policy breakdown of what a McCain administration's space policy would look like, he wants to kill effectively NASA.

Arguably, his space policy outline was more comprehensive than anything we've seen from the campaign on, say, on how he would handle Iraq, the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, or rebuilding the American economy. Amongst other things, he would ensure the continuation of high level investment in space research and maintain American leadership in space, while banishing earmarks that apparently erode NASA's ability to actually fund and perpetuate its cause. But earmark's are not McCain's only arch-nemesis rearing it's ugly head when it comes to supporting and emboldening America's space exploration priorities:

Russia's space monopoly, and a surging Chinese presence beyond Earth's atmosphere, means the U.S. will have to rely on nations McCain's campaign has already deemed as "obviously not allies" in order to bridge the 5 year gap between the Space Shuttle program and the Constellation program. It's unclear how a President McCain would, in fact, maintain America dominance and presence in space while also throwing Russia out of the G8, and casually tossing around bellicose statements towards the only countries capable of sending people and large payloads into space.  A President McCain could mean a comatose American space program, creating yet another area of science and technology where the U.S. falls behind. This would not only be dangerous to our national morale and international prestige, but severely put us behind from a strategic, economic, and global perspective as Russia and China would be able to leap light years ahead of our own space ambitions. In fact, the Russian/Georgia conflict almost already made this a reality. But the partnership plan with Russia was eventually rescued by Congress. It's extremely unclear if a similar result would have occurred under a more hard-line McCain administration.And McCain's view on this would be even more interesting as he is the former Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, which has jurisdiction over our nation's space program. Oh, and a Vice President Palin would be the Chair of NASA's board.

The bottom line is McCain's sanguine view of space is contradicted by his reckless and misguided worldview that would put NASA in peril. And though nobody would peg their vote to the future of America's space program, voters seriously need to consider if it's worth it to go from "one giant leap for mankind" to a disastrous free fall for America's future in space.

One of the most challenging and dangerous foreign policy issues today is that of nuclear weapons.  On this issue there is an incredible amount of responsibility that rests in the hands of the president.  As Jon Wolfsthal, nonproliferation expert and senior fellow at CSIS, told Democracy Arsenal, “The next VP must know how to handle the most awesome responsibility at the White House’s command – the American nuclear arsenal.  Unfortunately, Governor Palin has no experience on global security issues and showed no expertise on the content or purpose of American nuclear weapons.†In last night’s vice presidential debate Sarah Palin demonstrated this lack of expertise.

When Gwen Ifill asked:

Palin responded first with an incoherent answer not on the level of a vice presidential debate:

Then, she continued with an answer about preventing proliferation- the question was about America’s “trigger†mechanism- that leaves us wondering what she would do to prevent the spread of these weapons:

The question was about when she would use nuclear weapons, and she answers that dangerous regimes cannot get hold of these weapons- “periodâ€.  Is she saying that she would use nuclear weapons to prevent their spread?

Finally rather than address this critical subject in depth Palin tries to change it in an attempt to get back to her talking points:

This is just scary.  Nuclear weapons are about as serious an issue as they get.  Wolfsthal says, “It is one thing to talk generally about an issue and repeat recently digested talking points, and it is another to know the ins and outs of nuclear strategy.  As chairman of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden lived and breathed nuclear issues for a generation.  While nuclear expertise is not the only requirement people should look for in a VP, understanding the most complex aspects of the world’s most destructive weapons is relevant, and Governor Palin did not rise to the challenge during the debate.â€

Our Guest Blogger is Alexandra Bell, a researcher on nuclear weapons policy in Washington DC.

Though lost in the fray of other national security topics, Governor Palin’s response to Gwen Ifill’s question about triggers for nuclear use deserves some attention.  Either Governor Palin heard the term “nuclear weapons†and immediately launched into a pre-set talking point on the issue or she doesn’t understand the grave importance of a nuclear use policy.  Either way, Palin’s response did not instill the idea that she has the appropriate familiarity with nuclear weapons policy.   

Governor Palin stated that “our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry.† First of all, there is nothing safe about nuclear weapons.  Our own Air Force lost track of six warheads for over a day.  There are currently 60-100 nuclear weapons being used as deterrents in Pakistan, but safe and stable they are not.  That however, was not the question.  The question was about the United States using nuclear weapons. 

Ifill’s question is not easily answered, to be sure.  Unleashing the force of our nuclear arsenal would irrevocably change the world as we know it.  It is a worst-case scenario and one that would require the most serious consideration.  The Bush Administration seemed to disagree.  They maintained an ambiguous policy with regards to the use of nuclear weapons on non-nuclear countries and refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in response to a chemical or biological attack.  In their 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, they attempted to blur the line between nuclear and conventional weapons by pushing for the development of the more “usable†weapons like lower-yield tactical weapons, and the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (aka the nuclear bunker buster).

Perhaps Governor Palin did not want to cover this since her running mate, despite a recent change of heart, supported the development of these new nuclear weapons. He voted against eliminating funding for further development of the nuclear bunker buster in 2004 and 2005.  He now says that they don’t make strategic or political sense.  Senators

Obama and Biden never supported the creation of “usable†low-yield nuclear weapons. 
Senator Biden did not get to the nuclear use question either, though it could be due to the fact the Governor Palin switched the conversation to the war in Afghanistan. Senator Biden was able to convey that he understands the importance of the arms control regime and its role in national security. 

It is imperative that the next administration creates a nuclear posture review - one that clearly defines the parameters of use. This is every bit as important as our other national security needs. Both candidates should be asked about this in the next debate and hopefully neither will attempt to change the subject. 

A little fun with Sarah Palin's pronunciation of "nuclear"...remind you of someone?

Seriously, Carter was attacked for this, as was Bush, and there's a reason: it's used as a metaphor for mastery of this very basic foreign policy issue: non-proliferation. The question is fair game: If you can't pronounce it, how will you handle it? We can have a debate about the validity of that claim, but at very least, it's something debate prep should have corrected.

The majority of post debate fodder is always about style, character, and general personal approach. And while it might seem trite for pundits to criticize Biden for being too Washingtonian and Senatorial and Palin for appearing too amateurish and careless, while lauding Biden for being specific and careful with his phrasing and praising Palin for being folksy and in touch with average Americans, the words, actions and appearance matter from a domestic, diplomatic and international perspective.

Listen, we've just spent the better part of the past decade with a president who is a joke to foreign leaders and dignitaries, and a vice president who is viewed as the manipulative puppet master with the real levers of power. It might seem superficial to criticize the failure to properly pronounce the word nuclear, or failing to know the difference between who Gen. McKiernan and Scott McClellan is, but it's critical to remember the rest of the world is watching. And after 8 years of a White House being an international centrifuge for the comical caricature of American ignorance, it's important to have serious and competent people back in power. And part of this is not just knowing the facts, but being able to talk about the world in a way that is both knowledgeable and coherent. The manner in which you speak is almost as important as showing knowledge of what you are speaking about. In fact the two can't co-exist if either is deficient. It matters to the leaders of Iraq how you pronounce the name of their country. It matters to nations with nuclear weapons how you pronounce the very weapons you are trying to suppress the spread of. It matters to the credibility of America that our leaders are able to  speak in terms that doesn't make them look like fools. And tonight, Sarah Palin failed this critical test.

Regurgitating talking points only gets you so far, and can make you appear feeble and deficient on both the debate and international stage.

Umm... Bosniaks is the name for Bosnian Muslims. The good people at the Swamp got this wrong when they wrote:

There are three major ethnic groups in Bosnia, Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks. It is the It is in the Dayton Accords -- for those at the Swamp -- that is the agreement that ended the Bosnian war. Here it is in the preamble:

Here it is in the CIA Factbook:

Update: After first posting this last night, Josh Marshall discovered more examples of the msm not knowing the term "Bosniak." Who is gaffe prone now, Cokie?

This is classic. From Red State:

Wonder what the Bosnians thought? Probably that it was impressive that Biden knew that Bosnian Muslims are called Bosniaks. But I could not agree more with the red state post, this gaffe does deserve much ridicule.

Sarah Palin just said she wishes she had more chances to talk to the American people. What- does the campaign not allow her to?

1.  Palin mispronounced our commander in Afghanistan, Dave McKiernan's  name and also claimed that he supported the idea of using the Iraq surge as a model for Afghanistan even though just yesterday he said he did not.

2.  In response to a question on Iran and Pakistan Palin answered by starting to talk about Iraq.  Similar to McCain's obsession on Iraq with complete neglect for all other national security priorities.

3.  Palin promised that the Middle East peace process would be a top priority for a McCain administration.  But McCain's own advisors last week said that it wouldn't.

4.  Palin was unable to distinguish any specific difference between Bush and McCain on any foreign policy issues.  Joe Biden made that point very clearly.

5.  Sarah Palin seems to rely quite heavily on her notes and on a very limited set of talking points.  She has been dodging questions all night long. 

Message to Governor Palin as she reads off her notes: There's no cheat sheet at 3 AM

sorry Sarah...can I call you Sarah?

It's nu-clear.

Palin keeps calling their campaign a "team of mavericks." Does that make any sense? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

This is a post from NSN intern Eric Auner

Palin just said that nuclear weapons are currently being used as a deterrent. The only problem is that this was said in response to a question on the circumstances under which the weapons would actually be fired. The meaning of the deterrent is that they might, at some point, be fired. If you are unclear about what that point is, then the deterrent is meaningless.

Biden asks how is McCain's policy any different on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan...  He is right there has been no clear difference on any of these issues.   

This week General McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan, and General David Petraeus made an obvious point: “Afghanistan is not Iraq.â€

Both insisted that the challenges in Afghanistan are very different than the ones in Iraq and therefore require a very different strategy and approach. McKiernan said “What I don’t think is needed – the word I don’t use in Afghanistan is the word surge†and General Petraeus explained that every situation is “unique.†This is in stark contrast to the approach advocated by Senator McCain, who has insisted on applying the same “surge†plan that was adopted in Iraq to Afghanistan.

At last Friday’s debate McCain said, “the same strategy that he [Obama] condemned in Iraq. It’s going to have to be employed in Afghanistan.†In July, McCain said “the surge in Iraq…shows us the way to succeed in Afghanistan.†It is not surprising that McCain would mistakenly conflate Iraq and Afghanistan, since he and his fellow conservatives have paid little attention to the war in Afghanistan. McCain didn’t offer his “surge†plan for Afghanistan until late this summer and at the Republican National Convention last month, no major speaker even mentioned the word Afghanistan. As the situation continues to deteriorate in Afghanistan, the United States needs to adopt the comprehensive plan that progressives have been advocating the past few years. 

Governor Palin claimed that promoting an Arab-Israeli peace deal would be at the top of the agenda for John McCain's administration.  It's fine, even laudable to make a claim like that, but when it directly conflicts with statements from one of your key advisors, Max Boot, who just said a few weeks ago that bringing peace to Israel would not be a big priority for McCain, you begin to wonder about who controls the policy in John McCain's camp. 

Biden hits the mark. McCain's foreign policies are no different than Bush. In the rare cases that they are, such on North Korea, they are more extreme.

If Barack Obama's decision to meet with Iran, North Korea, and Cuba is so dangerous and naive, then how does she explain the Bush administration's current negotiations with North Korea, and both Republican and Democrat Secretaries of State saying we should negotiate with Iran:

Palin gets asked about Pakistan and Iran and can't help but start with Iraq.

Palin just repeated John McCain's claim that the surge strategy from Iraq could be successfully implemented in Afghanistan.  Yet in the past two days alone, the two members of the military working more closely on Afghanistan than anyone fundamentally disagreed with the McCain-Palin plan:

U.S. Commanders rebuff McCain’s vision for the war in Afghanistan. Speaking in Washington yesterday General David McKiernan, head of the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan and former head of ground forces in Iraq, rejected McCain’s plan for Afghanistan.  McKiernan argued that more troops “are urgently required to combat a worsening insurgency, but he stated emphatically that no Iraq-style ‘surge’ of forces will end the conflict there.† While McCain has often said that he wants to apply the same surge strategy in Afghanistan as in Iraq, the commanding general clearly stated “Afghanistan is not Iraq.†General David Petraeus, now the head of CENTCOM and former commander in Iraq said, “People often ask, ‘What did you learn from Iraq that might be transferable to Afghanistan?’... The first lesson, the first caution really, is that every situation like this is truly and absolutely unique, and has its own context and specifics and its own texture.†[Washington Post, 10/2/08. New York Times, 10/1/08]

Afghanistan’s strategic puzzle will not be solved by a surge in troops alone. NATO-ISAF commander General David McKiernan outlined Afghanistan’s many challenges that cannot be addressed purely by an influx of troops: “A country that has very harsh geography. It’s very difficult to move around, getting back to our reliance on helicopters. It’s a country with very few natural resources, as opposed to the oil revenues that [Iraq] has. There’s very little money to be generated in terms of generated in Afghanistan. The literacy rate — you have a literate society in Iraq, you have a society that has a history of producing civil administrators, technocrats, middle class that are able to run the country in Iraq. You do not have that in Afghanistan…So there are a lot of challenges. What I don’t think is needed — the word that I don’t use in Afghanistan is the word ‘surge’…There needs to be a sustained commitment of a variety of military and non-military resources, I believe.† Today’s piece in the New York Times, covering Afghanistan’s debilitating opium trade, which funds insurgents and produces instability, further demonstrates why a military solution alone will not be sufficient in Afghanistan.  [General David McKiernan, Washington Independent, 10/1/08.  NY Times, 10/02/08]

McCain has never laid out a plan for how to bring the troops home. McCain has said he wants to have an indefinite presence in Iraq (remember the 100 years comment) but has never said at what point he will bring the troops home. He has never defined what he means by "victory" and has never said how that would be achieved. All McCain has said that he would stay the course.

How many times has Sarah Palin looked down at her  notes on the podium?

Richard Clarke put out an interesting piece today about the possibility of a terrorist attack on the U.S. between now and the election.  He points out that terrorists have been successful in influencing elections in other countries:

Clarke even points out possible effects we have had here at home:

But what I find most interesting is Clarke’s argument that the attacks would likely help McCain win the election, which might just be what al Qaeda is looking to do.  Despite the right wing’s crazed rhetoric and fear-mongering, an Obama presidency might be the very worst thing for al Qaeda.  Clark’s argument, in part, is that Obama’s popularity in Europe and the Middle East will give America’s image the facelift that it needs- something that could really hurt al Qaeda’s recruitment and fundraising.

Matt Yglesias has a great piece today explaining the relationship between the Iraq War and the economic crisis and how the two interplay.  He also managed to find a video that explains the full economic costs of the war which is well worth a watch.  Matt writes:

I think that's mostly right.  Although there is one exception.  Military R&D spending can sometimes be leveraged into the private sector and can create long-term wealth.  The best example is the internet, which was originally started through investments and technology in the Defense Department.

There's also the question of long term vs. short term security tradeoffs.  The economy acts as the base of military power.  It can be transformed into immediate military power at any time but at a long-term cost of reducing your military power.  A country can invest in its economy in the short-term causing long-term economic growth, which creates a bigger base from which it can invest in military power.  Or, it can invest in military power in the short-term understanding that this will have a cost to it's economy and thus long-term military effectiveness. 

The problem right now with the Bush administration sreategy is that we are investing well over $500 billion per year in defense once you include Iraq and Afghanistan, while China, the country most likely to present a significant long-term strategic challenge to the U.S., invests only $60 billion.  That is a pretty dramatic handicap that we are creating  for ourselves, especially when most of the spending is for weapons programs that might be obselete by the time the Chinese really are ready to compete and the fact that we still hold a dramatic military advantage.

So, what does the right balance between near-term security and long-term economic power look like?  I support the Richard Betts approach

This seems utterly sensible.  Invest heavily in a surge capacity that focuses primarily on R&D investments, which have more spillover into the rest of the economy and maintain our long-term economic vitality.  It also has the convenience of not scaring the Chinese into an arms race and forms the basis for a national security strategy that we can actually afford. 

We at Democracy Arsenal will be live blogging tonight's debate and responding to any foreign policy issues that arise. If this is to be believed, there may be more foreign policy content then originally expected, since Palin may actually decide to go on the attack tonight on foreign policy:

Check this space regularly.