The Next 4 Years... Blink and You'll Miss 'Em

If you watched Charlie Gibson's interview Thursday with Sarah Palin you know how quickly she took to the metaphor of "blinking". She didn't blink when asked to be McCain's running-mate, but she might have wanted to if only to bone up on the Bush Doctrine and national security issues other than Alaskan oil and natural gas. And she might be forced to blink when national security doesn't run up against her most vaunted credential - the increase of natural gas supply from Alaska - as strongly as she might think.

She says "energy is a foundation of national security. It's that important, it's that significant." Naturally it's significant, but is it a lynchpin for success in a world in which America has:

• stepped into a conflict between Russia and Georgia which has little if any impact on American energy interests?


• pushed the issue of nuclear disarmament in North Korea and Iran, using the idiom "Axis of Evil" as a starting point?


• engaged in a protracted war on two fronts?


• focused in that war mainly on Iraq while peace in Afghanistan is increasingly curtailed by a well-entrenched guerrilla force and a NATO force stretched to the limit?

The problem is that Sarah Palin isn't saying anything new. How often have the words "energy independence" and "war" been in the same sentence since the primaries? Her experience as Alaska's governor doesn't give her a unique enough perspective to parlay that experience into foreign policy decisions. When pressed about her comment on not having followed the War in Iraq, Palin replied that she follows it like all of us have. Most people I know follow it in the press. I can only assume from her response that Sarah Palin does as well, making her as informed as anyone with access to a computer, or at least a TV. I'd like a deeper insight from a rising star of the GOP, especially one pegged as the next VP.

When asked if she agrees with NATO forces expanding operations into Pakistan without Pakistani permission, she falls back on diplomatic niceties.

Her answer: "As for our right to invade? We're going work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, and new also. In order, Charlie, to get to a point in this world where war isn't going to be a first option."

You don't build a relationship with a country before invading. So is it a "yes" or a "no" on invading Pakistan? Having to read between the lines on her answer, I can only assume it's a "no".

The question before her was not whether war is a first option or an only option. It was specifically how to fight Taliban fighters once they seek refuge in Pakistan. That is a firm condition on which the future of the conflict rests. In Afghanistan, war is not an option - it is a concrete reality. And it is an emergent reality in Pakistan. Her refusal to speak directly to those realities speaks itself to a complete lack of understanding in international politics.

Her answer is better left in a college "intro to philosophy" course. Of course nobody likes war - nobody forced to fight it, anyway. If she's not in favor of invading Pakistan, then how does she propose to stop a terrorist stronghold from developing in the north? That's the issue before her - war as an actuality, not a potential sometime down the road. Thanks for the pep talk, but no thanks. I'd rather a firm answer, or at least an answer that points to some thoughtfulness.

It's fine if she doesn't agree with invading Pakistan. She just needs to say so. This is what I take issue with. We're asked to judge her on the issues, but when asked pointed questions outside of her limited resume we get a dance and become lost in "a blizzard of words", as Charlie Gibson rightfully says.

If a question falls within the confines of energy and Alaskan natural gas, she answers boldly. Most don't, so she tries to make them fit. When she can't, she answers just as boldly but with words that sound like the right response to anyone only half-listening. Answers anyone might give when confronted with something she knows nothing about. A blizzard of words blowing in from the wilderness, from the outskirts of global understanding.

Palin's politics are too remote to translate to the national scene, though she tries. She seems to think that being neighbors to Russia translates to an intimate relationship. And she seems to think that repeating "Alaska and Russia are neighbors" will somehow carry this over with the self-evident power of a truism.

I don't doubt her commitment. But commitment without wherewithal can lead to very misguided policies, and for some, an inability to admit a mistake. If Sarah Palin would've said she was wrong about the Bridge to Nowhere instead of ignoring her change of mind, I'd feel better about her level of readiness.

I do, though, doubt where her commitment lies. She's shown she knows next to nothing about issues she'll have direct influence over. The effects of that influence will be global. Her overbearing emphasis on Alaskan contributions to America's future shows only a parochial interest in American affairs. I worry that in foreign affairs and issues of the economy, Alaska will always be in the back of her mind as a guiding special interest. Her commitment is wired to what's helped her build a life and a family, and hasn't progressed to a national, more general interest.

The next four years. Blink and Sarah Palin will be our next vice-president. Blink and then watch American politics and foreign affairs become more divisive and strained. Blink and then we'll always wonder what opportunities we passed up. Blink and we might as well keep our eyes closed. John McCain and Sarah Palin sure will as they forge ahead with commitment, belief and hollow, shallow words. We can't blink.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5782924&page=1