Last night’s foreign policy debate really wasn’t. The candidates spent more time talking about the budget and immigration than they did talking about China, India, NATO… In fact, these topics didn’t even come up.

In fairness, CNN did far better than CBS two weeks ago which not only cut off its broadcast midway through the debate but didn’t seem to care particularly for the candidates’ answers while they were on the air. At least “Blitz” let them talk for more than thirty seconds at a time.

This is what’s wrong with these debates: the candidates know that they might have only thirty seconds or a minute at best to respond to a question so instead of debating, they roll out a prepared and rehearsed statement that doesn’t commit them to anything.

Why not limit the topics? There are more than two dozen debates in this primary cycle. Why not have the candidates debate, for an hour, about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and America’s future presence in the Middle East and then talk about how China’s rise affects American posture in the Asia-Pacific? Why not talk for an hour about nuclear proliferation, including North Korea? Europe? NATO? Russia? It doesn’t all need to be stuffed in a single debate.

But I digress. What disappointed me most wasn’t Wolf Blitzer’s moderatorship but the questions from the audience which were totally predictable. These weren’t just random voters though. These were very smart people with the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation who have a much better grasp of foreign policy than their questions suggested.

How would I have done a better job? Here’s some ideas:

• Senator Santorum, you champion a more activist foreign policy in Latin America. Do you believe that the United States should act as a counterweight to an assertive Brazil; strengthen alliances with Chile and Colombia to prevent a Brazilian hegemony in the region or do you believe that a powerful Brazil actually serves America’s interest there?
• Congressman Paul, you advocate a complete withdrawal of American forces from foreign countries. What do you suppose will be the impact on American energy security if the United States retreated from the Persian Gulf altogether?
• Governor Perry, why should the United States unilaterally impose a no-fly zone over Syria? Why should the United States care about what happens in Syria at all?
• Governor Romney, you want to impose tariffs on Chinese imports to convince the country to appreciate its currency at a faster pace. Is this realistic given China’s enormous dependence on cheap exports and America’s dependence on Chinese credit? What, moreover, will be the repercussions? Could such a move instigate a trade war?
• Mr Cain, you recently said that radical Islamists, including Al Qaeda, could become part of the new Libyan Government. Do you still believe this is true and if so, what do you propose to do about it?
• Speaker Gingrich, if you try to foment regime change in Iran, won’t than stiffen the Iranians’ anti-Americanism and their quest for a nuclear weapon? This is a nation that’s experienced American interference in its internal affairs before and that locked in the theocracy we have now. Can the United States afford another military entanglement in that part of the world?
• Congresswoman Bachmann, can the United States salvage its strategic relationship with Pakistan while deepening relations with India at the same time? If so, how? If not, which is more important?
• Ambassador Huntsman, you’re prepared to withdraw tens of thousands of troops from Afghanistan and end the nation building effort there. What if that results in a Taliban resurgence in at least part of the country? What will be the effect on America’s credibility and prestige around the world?