沒完沒了的總統大選只剩最後幾周，候選人面對面互相指摘，籠絡最後一批拿不定主意的選民。由於某位主要黨派候選人一路咋咋呼呼走到現在，首場辯論更引人關注的是這位候選人的臨陣磨槍，而不是國家面臨的問題。要了解美國2016年外交政策全貌，必須後退一步，試着辨別特朗普稀奇古怪的念頭與有礙政策健全的其他錯誤觀念。

美國總統大選只剩最後幾周。

當特朗普在第一場辯論中被問到電子郵件黑客等網絡攻擊威脅時，他不住口地扯中國、“某個躺在床上的400磅重胖子”、前民主黨主席被黑客曝光的電子郵件內容、他10歲兒子的電腦水平——全都與俄羅斯普京政權才是主要嫌疑犯這種大眾觀感格格不入。第二場辯論又提到俄羅斯黑客攻擊問題，特朗普再次莫名其妙地替莫斯科打掩護。當時特朗普等於直接與美國情報機構唱反調，而他作為未來可能的三軍統帥，是會收到這些機構的特別簡報的。一位美國高級情報官員在回應這場辯論時表示，情報機構已經公開確認俄羅斯是黑客攻擊策源地，事實上，唐納德·特朗普應該知道得更多。還記得幾個星期前，也許是因為美國官方沒有找到前國務卿希拉里·克林頓不當處理國家機密的證據，特朗普竟然鼓勵俄羅斯黑客曝光更多其競爭對手的郵件內容。不用說，就算與對手極端對立，邀請外國勢力干預美國大選也是毫無底線。

而且，特普朗競選綱領的一些主要內容也是學舌共和黨幾年、幾十年來一直推銷的不靠譜觀點。我的新書《我認為是廢話》談到共和黨的政策方法是怎樣成為了不切實際的極右教條。特別是外交政策上，共和黨妄想一個“萬能的美國”，幻想美國有能力大包大攬世界事務，讓其他國際玩家唯我們的意願是從。聽聽特朗普和其他共和黨人對付ISIS（伊斯蘭國）挑戰的辦法吧，明顯他們是在裝腔作勢，夸夸其談。

首次競選辯論中，特朗普照例承諾說，奧巴馬總統無法對付敘利亞和伊拉克冒出的伊斯蘭王國，而他會“很快把ISIS送進地獄”。這是共和黨外交政策的核心幻想，即他們能夠戰勝美國的敵人，並通過堅定地展示實力和意志，讓世界其他國家俯首聽命。與總統奧巴馬和國務卿希拉里這樣的民主黨人不同，共和黨領導人自命不凡地認為，他們不憚於採取必要的強硬手段把事情辦成。然而他們卻很少看到我們國家所面臨的安全挑戰的細節問題。

唐納德·特朗普

唐納德·特朗普不是唯一把解決ISIS威脅想得過分簡單化的共和黨領導人。例如在共和黨初選中排名第二的參議員特德·克魯茲，他回應奧巴馬總統去年12月在橢圓辦公室就ISIS發表的演說時表示：“如果當選總統，我會指揮國防部摧毀ISIS！” 嚇人！這話竟然出自競選總統的參議院軍事委員會成員之口。不管怎麼說，與這種國家安全的臆想相反，在敘利亞或伊拉克採取新的軍事行動，某克魯茲總統要做的遠不止是大手一揮批准一個包贏不輸的現成計劃。

特朗普和克魯茲也許沒意識到，眼下還有數千美國士兵呆在伊拉克，幫助當地部隊奪回被ISIS控制的村鎮和城市。美國派出的軍人加入了2014年開始打擊ISIS的60國聯盟。在大約兩年時間裡，他們針對2.2萬多個目標實施了1.1萬次以上空襲。

為達到自己的政治目的，共和黨人熱衷於通過不斷散播恐懼，讓整個外交政策辯論集中在中東發生的壞事上。由於牽扯到各種勢力，解決敘利亞危機需要一個克制謹慎的良策。正如我們在伊拉克和阿富汗看到的，最難不過的，就是像美國這樣試圖為地理遙遠的他國重塑權力結構。敘利亞衝突既野蠻又悲慘，需要不斷找尋解決方案，但它還不是美國有效外交政策的主要考驗。

美國外交政策辯論焦點過於集中在中東。為糾正這種傾向，奧巴馬政府實行了所謂的“重返亞洲（或者叫再平衡）”，即按照國家整體挑戰和利益相應地重新調整美國的政策。

構成美國外交政策議程最頂層部分的，是那種如果任其惡化將嚴重侵蝕國際體系的挑戰：維持全球經濟增長，遏制氣候變化，阻止核武器擴散。好消息是，這三個方面在奧巴馬總統任內都取得了重大進展：與其他大國共同努力從大蕭條中復蘇，與伊朗達成外交協議，全球氣候協議成為奧巴馬和希拉里的優先考慮。

其實，這種從更廣的視角看待當今相互聯繫的世界，並努力建立必要聯盟的做法，正是奧巴馬和希拉里務實政策與共和黨食古不化政策的主要區別。最重要的是，美國必須通過穩步帶領其他國家發展踐行其領導力，而不是只靠發最後通牒。希拉里·克林頓任國務卿的時候對此有過強調：“領導力的一部分，是你要確保其他人也在場。”總之，孤家寡人是談不上領導力的。

（本文摘自肖大衛關於共和黨政策議程的新著《我認為是廢話：讓我們的政策脫離現實的四個謬誤》）

Now that we've reached the final weeks of the seemingly endless presidential campaign, the candidates are squaring off against one another, face-to-face, and making their cases to the last group of undecided voters. Given that one of the major party nominees has spent the entire process trying to bluff his way through, the first debate shined more light on that candidate's ill-preparedness than on the issues facing the country. For a full picture of U.S. foreign policy in 2016, one must step back and try to differentiate between Donald Trump's most outlandish ideas and other misguided notions that get in the way of sound policy.

There are only several weeks left before the U.S. presidential election.

When Trump was asked at the first debate about the threat from cyber attacks such as email hacking, he rambled on about China, “somebody sitting on a bed that weighs 400 pounds,” the content of the former Democratic Party chair's hacked emails, and the computer skills of his own ten-year-old son—all to resist the consensus view, pointing to Russian President Putin's regime as the prime suspect. The question of hacking by Russia also came up in the second debate, again with Trump bizarrely covering for Moscow. By then Trump was directly at odds with the same U.S. intelligence agencies from which he, as a potential commander in chief, receives special briefings. With those agencies having publicly identified Russia as the source of the hacking, a senior U.S. intelligence official responded to the debate by saying, in effect, Donald Trump ought to know better. Recall also that Trump several weeks ago encouraged Russian hackers to expose more of his opponent's emails, presumably because U.S. authorities didn't find evidence of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mishandling state secrets. It should go without saying, but welcoming a foreign power's intervention in an American election falls way out of bounds, even in a time of intense polarization.

At the same time, there are major elements of Donald Trump's campaign platform that parrot flimsy ideas the Republican Party has been promoting for years or decades. My new book, I Call Bullshit, looks at how GOP policy approaches have degenerated into unworkable far-right dogma. Specifically on foreign policy, the Republican delusion of an "almighty America"—the fantasy that the United States has the ability to exert full command of world events and keep other international players from doing anything against our wishes. Listen to the way Trump and other Republicans address the challenge posed by the Islamic State, and it becomes apparent that they offer little more than posturing and empty rhetoric.

At the first debate and on the campaign trail, Trump regularly pledges to “knock the hell out of ISIS and do it fast” after President Obama's supposed failure to confront the self-styled caliphate in Syria and Iraq. This is the core conceit of the Republicans' foreign policy approach: that they can vanquish America's enemies and whip the rest of the world into line through unflinching shows of strength and will. GOP leaders flatter themselves that, unlike Democrats such as President Obama and Secretary Clinton, they wouldn't shrink from the forceful steps necessary to get the job done. However, little attention is paid to the specifics of our national security challenges.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump is hardly the only Republican leader to badly oversimplify the solution to the ISIS threat. For instance the second-place finisher in the GOP primaries, Sen. Ted Cruz, responded to President Obama's December 2015 Oval Office address on ISIS with a statement that: “If I am elected President, I will direct the Department of Defense to destroy ISIS.” Stunning, coming from a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee seeking the presidency. At any rate, contrary to this fantasy version of national security, new military action in Syria or Iraq would require more from a President Cruz than just giving the 'go' signal for a precooked surefire plan.

Trump and Cruz may not realize thousands of U.S. troops are in Iraq currently, helping local forces wrest towns and cities from ISIS control. American service members are deployed as part of a larger 60-nation coalition assembled to combat ISIS starting in 2014. In approximately two years, their air campaign has carried out over 11,000 airstrikes against more than 22,000 ISIS targets.

For their own political purposes, Republicans are keen to focus the entire foreign policy debate on the bad things that happen in the Middle East through constant fear-mongering. Because of all the forces involved, the Syrian crisis deserves to be approached with a good measure of humility and prudence. As we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to remake the power structure of another nation is among the hardest things for a geographically remote outsider, like the U.S., to do. The Syrian conflict is savage and tragic and demands a continued search for a solution, but it is not the main test of an effective U.S. foreign policy.

American foreign policy debates tend to focus disproportionally on the Middle East. To correct this tendency, the Obama administration's adopted the so-called pivot to Asia (aka “rebalancing”): to refocus U.S. policy in proper proportion to the full range of the nation's challenges and interests.

The top tier of the U.S. foreign policy agenda is comprised of challenges that, if allowed to worsen, could seriously erode the international system: keeping the global economy growing, stemming climate change, and checking the spread of nuclear weapons. The good news is that President Obama leaves office having made significant progress on all three fronts. Working with the world's other major players to recover from the Great Recession, reach diplomatic agreements on Iran, and a global climate deal were Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's top priorities.

Indeed, this broader perspective on today's interconnected world and diligent approach to building the necessary coalitions, are the main elements that distinguish Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's pragmatic approach from the Republicans' bullheaded approach. Most crucially, the key is for America to exercise leadership by steadily bringing the other players along, rather than just issuing ultimatums. When Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, she stressed this point by saying that “part of leading is making sure you get other people on the field.” After all, it isn't leadership if no one else stands with you.

This column was adapted from David Shorr's new book about the Republican policy agenda, I Call Bullshit: Four Fallacies That Keep Our Politics From Being Reality-Based.