What is America’s role in the world? What does it stand for? What threats does it face? When and how should it intervene in disputes? With military force, or with diplomacy? With sanctions or development aid?

For any Democrat competing to succeed President Trump as president, solutions to such problems could require not only undoing the damage Mr. Trump has caused — alienating allies, cozying up to autocrats, tearing up international agreements and sowing doubts about America’s role as the lodestar of democracy — but creating a new approach to national security.

So far, though, foreign policy has been a second thought in the primary campaign. While former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders have offered broader visions, in general, candidates have responded to major international issues more with posturing and platitudes than thoughtful policy.

In a fairly detailed plan, Ms. Warren has called for reinvigorating the decimated and demoralized State Department, because “our foreign policy should not be run out of the Pentagon.” Last year she urged major cuts in military spending, a rethinking of overseas troop deployments, new curbs on nuclear weapons, an end to trade deals that enrich corporations and investing “in the social, political and economic foundations on which democracies rest.”

Mr. Sanders is also concerned about how an overreliance on the military has distorted America’s response to international problems. Just ending wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere “is not enough,” he wrote last month in Foreign Affairs. “We need to rethink the militaristic approach that has undermined the United States’ moral authority, caused allies to question our ability to lead, drained our tax coffers and corroded our own democracy.” He has championed a Senate resolution invoking the War Powers Act to halt America’s support for the Saudi-led bombardment of Yemen.

Although Mr. Biden, in an address on foreign policy last week, also called for more reliance and resources for the State Department and for restoring a commitment to democracy and multilateral alliances, the speech was a scathing indictment of Mr. Trump’s leadership, or lack of it.

While Mr. Biden supported withdrawing “the vast majority” of combat troops from Afghanistan, and ending support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, he also called for making “investments necessary to equip our troops for the challenges of this century, not the last century, this one and the next one.” That’s a contrast with Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders, who have called for sharp cuts in military spending.

Like Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders, Mr. Biden sought to make foreign policy more relevant to voters by stressing the importance of a vibrant economy and a strong middle class so America can credibly lead the world in confronting threats from China and other adversaries. He endorsed elevating diplomacy and making the use of force “our last resort, not our first,” but whether his vision will satisfy those who want even less intervention is unclear.

Pete Buttigieg, a Navy reservist who was deployed for seven months to Afghanistan, has said that despite mistakes in Iraq and elsewhere, American leadership is still needed to address future threats, reverse the rise of authoritarianism abroad, address climate change and modernize international institutions. When force is used, he said, “we must also have an end game.”

What voters have been more likely to hear is reflexive condemnation of whatever Mr. Trump does or does not do.

His meeting late last month with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un at the Demilitarized Zone is a case in point. Ms. Warren faulted Mr. Trump for “exchanging love letters with a ruthless dictator.” Senator Kamala Harris admonished him to “take the North Korean nuclear threat and its crimes against humanity seriously. ” Julian Castro, a former secretary of housing and urban development, said, “It is all show. It’s all symbolism. It is not substance.”

Such criticisms are reasonable, but they are not policy. Mr. Biden has said he will refuse to deal with Mr. Kim until North Korea takes some unspecified first step. Most Democratic candidates have yet to put forward comprehensive proposals on how to deal with the nuclear threat from North Korea.

Virtually all of the candidates support a greater role for Congress in deciding whether to initiate war and expressed alarm about the potential of stumbling into military conflict with Iran. Many have endorsed rejoining the Iran nuclear deal that Mr. Trump abrogated, without saying how they intend to tackle this complex problem.

A typical answer came from Senator Amy Klobuchar, who said that, while imperfect, “It was a good deal for that moment,” and, “What I would do is negotiate us back into that agreement, stand with our allies and not give unlimited leverage to China and Russia, which was what he has done.” More detail is needed.

While there is a strong proclivity among the candidates to reduce the nation’s military commitments, with at least half saying they would bring the troops home from Afghanistan, nuance can make a difference. “I believe we should bring back our troops from Afghanistan but I also believe that we need to have a presence there” to support the Afghan leaders and deter terrorists from returning, Senator Harris told The Times.

Asked the greatest threat facing America at their debate in June, there was little consensus. One candidate, Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, identified Mr. Trump; others were more predictable, citing Russia, China, nuclear weapons and climate change.

Support for Israel remains strong, but differences in tone and emphasis are noticeable. Asked by The Times whether Israel meets international human rights standards, Beto O’Rourke said Israel “attempts” to do so but, “I know that they could do a better job.” Senator Cory Booker noted that Mr. Trump “seems not to support this idea of a two-state solution, which has had bipartisan commitment and conviction over decades.” Mr. Biden said the government needs to sustain “our ironclad commitments” to Israel.

It’s significant that the Democrats want to reassert American leadership and that so many are inclined to end the forever wars. For decades, Republicans portrayed themselves as the party of security and international engagement; Mr. Trump has called that into question. By a margin of 57 percent to 40 percent, voters now disapprove of the president’s handling of world affairs, according to a study by the Center for American Progress. That’s a fortuitous opening if the Democrats can make their case.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected].

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Carol Giacomo, a former diplomatic correspondent for Reuters in Washington, covered foreign policy for the international wire service for more than two decades before joining the Times editorial board in 2007. @giacomonyt

Source: Read Full Article