As I write this I'm not sure what will become of tonight's scheduled debate between the candidates for president. Whether it takes place or not, these questions posed by America in preparation for the debate lay out some important issues for all of us to consider as we face the national election in November. Here are the first five questions, the rest can be found at America.

What should American foreign policy look like?

One week from tonight, the eyes of the electorate will turn to the University of Mississippi, where Barack Obama and John McCain will meet for the first face-to-face showdown of the 2008 general election. Although the candidates have already been asked thousands of questions in this campaign, their answers have revealed more about their political styles than their substantive policy proposals. Moreover, what has been almost totally absent from this campaign has been any real discussion of their competing worldviews or political philosophies.

Our hope is that the upcoming presidential debates, while affording voters a good look at the candidates’ different policy proposals, will also provide us a glimpse of their basic political principles, the values that make them tick and would necessarily inform their decisions as president. Accordingly, the editors of America present the following ten groups of questions for the consideration of the moderator and presidential candidates. The first debate will focus on foreign policy and national security. A second online America editorial will pose questions for the subsequent debate on domestic issues.

1. In your judgment, what are the conditions that must be satisfied in order for an armed conflict to be morally justified? Do you believe in a doctrine of “preventative war?” Are the classical requirements for a just war necessarily suspended in the so-called war on terror?

2. A frequent refrain in foreign policy debates is that the U.S. ought to act on the global stage only when it is “in our national interests.” Do you subscribe to this view? If so, how do you define the “national interest” of the United States? When is something “in our national interest” and when is it not?

3. Do you believe that when a foreign government has failed to fulfill its duty to protect its citizens either through neglect or through active persecution, that the international community has a legal or moral duty to intervene? If so, should such interventions be undertaken only under the auspices of the United Nations or other international organizations or can you envision circumstances in which the U.S. should intervene unilaterally?

4. Do you believe that the U.S. has a moral or legal obligation to stop genocide when and where it is occurring? Do you find the current definition of genocide contained in the Genocide Convention of 1948 and endorsed by the U.S. State Department to be adequate?[1] Can you envision circumstances in which the U.S. should not act to stop genocide by any means available? Has the U.S. ever failed to stop genocide? If so, when?

5. There has been much discussion in this campaign about how the U.S. ought to approach its relations with its designated “enemies.” Could you tell us: what is “appeasement” and what is the difference, if you think there is one, between appeasement and negotiation and compromise?

...

See America for questions 6-10