Debate debate

The Washington Post poses some excellent questions for Thursday's foreign policy debate.

The necessary prelude to that practical focus, it seems to us, is a large and unresolved question of principle: What is the war on terrorism? Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, there appeared to be a consensus that this country faced a long and complex struggle against extremists who had chosen to attack the United States, as well as against states that supported them and might supply them with weapons of mass destruction. Three years later it's not so clear. Mr. Bush still describes that kind of broad war and places Iraq at the center of it; Mr. Kerry says Iraq was a diversion from the "real enemy," al Qaeda.

The crucial question here is not whether there were links between Iraq and al Qaeda, but whether the war should be understood as extending beyond that terrorist group and others associated with it. Does it include confronting states that sponsor Islamic terrorism, such as Iran and Syria? Does victory require a political transformation of the Middle East, or a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, or more intensive nation-building in failed states? Mr. Kerry's recent speeches suggest a narrower focus; is it right that more concentration on al Qaeda and Afghanistan would make the United States safer than a concurrent campaign against Iranian-sponsored terrorism or for free elections in Egypt? If Osama bin Laden were captured and al Qaeda were destroyed, would the war be over?

The dilemna for Kerry is, yes, these are the kinds of questions that should be asked in this debate. But if Kerry tries to give a real answer, it will necessarily require the dreaded "N" word, "nuance." We know how Bush will answer, with more blather about how the "war on terror" is going swimmingly, we're keeping the evil doers from our shores, peace and prosperity requires his grand vision of democracy throughout the middle east (not quite as important for our "allies," but never mind), and that Iran and Syria are "worrisome," but with our success in Iraq, they'll fall in line just as he claims Libya has.

If that happens, Kerry will have won on substance. Maybe even that night's polls will show that the American people generally agree he won on substance. But we know that the spin cycle will begin on TV that night (recommendation: watch the debate on C-Span and avoid the spin), and in the newspapers in the days to follow. Much will be made of the fact that you couldn't put Kerry's answsers on a bumper sticker, while Bush put forward a reassuring face to the American public. Fact-checking? That will be on page 18, below the fold.

The Post editorial board may want an honest, intellectual debate, but they will be first in the hand wringing line the next morning if Kerry provides an honest, intellectual answer.

And if four years ago were any indication, the American public will be spun. Al Gore understand that and has some advice for JFK.

The biggest single difference between the debates this year and four years ago is that President Bush cannot simply make promises. He has a record. And I hope that voters will recall the last time Mr. Bush stood on stage for a presidential debate. If elected, he said, he would support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada. He promised that his tax cuts would create millions of new jobs. He vowed to end partisan bickering in Washington. Above all, he pledged that if he put American troops into combat: "The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined."

Comparing these grandiose promises to his failed record, it's enough to make anyone want to, well, sigh.