TheSequitur.com Editorial Board
August 19, 2007 

Occasionally a Presidential candidate's remarks on the stump will stir up a bee's nest in the press. Rarer still will those remarks be strong enough to elicit a response from foreign heads of state. 

[S]etting foreign policy on the stump is irresponsible.Such was the case recently when Sen. Barack Obama (D – Ill.) announced at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that, “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President Musharraf won't act, we will.” 

Political theater aside (and it was just that - Obama's campaign sent out excerpts of the speech before it was given clearly knowing it would generate attention), setting foreign policy on the stump is irresponsible. In an effort to seem more gallant than his opponents (or the current president) Obama seems to have forgotten the delicate situation in Pakistan. 

Troops in Afghanistan are extremely frustrated that elements of al Qaeda and the Taliban are hiding in Pakistan and striking from the safety of another country. But Pervez Musharraf 's presidency hangs by a thread, and the possibility of a radical faction of Islamic militants taking charge of Pakistan's nuclear weapons is a grave and real danger.

Obama is not alone in this type of blunder. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R – Colo.), also a presidential candidate, demonstrated his fringe credentials by threatening to “take out” Muslim holy sites like Mecca and Medina should the United States suffer a nuclear attack at the hands of terrorists.   

Should presidential candidates be outlining specific foreign policy strategies before it is even clear whether their party will select them as the official nominee? Sort of.

Should presidential candidates be outlining specific foreign policy strategies before it is even clear whether their party will select them as the official nominee?Candidates should and must take on certain hypothetical situations during a campaign, but they should not omit crucial details to seem superior to either the status quo or alternative. Unfortunately, both Obama and Tancredo laid blanket foreign policy strategies on the table for all to see, when they instead could have easily discussed the manner in which they would arrive at a particular solution to such serious problems.

The hypothetical foreign policy situations that journalists and others present to any one candidate should be tests to get a glimpse of the candidate’s thought processes and problem solving abilities – not just a sound bite platform. Maybe candidates should answer such questions with their own hypotheticals. After all, wouldn't it be more telling not to hear how Obama would deal with Musharraf, but how he would approach any foreign problem that could result in nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands?
[YouTube]