The debates that set off the presidential strife late Monday night marked the beginning of a harsh new reality awaiting not just the American people but also a large chunk of the global audience.On one side we have a self-made politician constantly bragging about his business empire. On the other side, we have a former senator and secretary of state who's been vying for the presidential seat for far too long.The Trump vs. Clinton presidential campaign has been marred by heated exchanges of words that capture just a snippet of the actual problems we are facing on the ground right now. Both sides have proven that neither will go down without a fight.While America's foreign policy plummets due to wishy washy responses from politicians, the question of "who won the debate" pales in comparison to the clear lack of vision and cohesiveness when it comes to solving the most urgent issue on the American national security agenda: terrorism.The looming presence of terrorism both on U.S. soil and abroad has become an unsurpassable impediment to sustaining peace for the American people.While the debate platform was laden with dirt slinging that included Trump pointing fingers at Clinton for not disclosing her 33,000 emails and Clinton challenging Trump for not releasing his tax returns and for supporting the invasion of Iraq, we have yet to see any concrete solution to the coagulated terror threat by either candidate while the threat continues creeping in from all sides.Against the backdrop of Monday's debate, the question of who will win the presidency in the coming weeks is a matter not only of national concern but of global apprehension as the future of American leadership hangs in the balance, ultimately to forecast the outcome of major international issues.The war on terror campaign that dominates the Middle East and North Africa has continuously led to failure, as strategies to fix problems on the ground were, in fact, shortsighted. For this particular reason, the rise of anti-American sentiment has turned out to be an entanglement of American foreign policy with the root cause easily identifiable in the disparaging attitude taken by policy-makers toward those "needing rescue."At this point in time, measuring the palpability of Trump and Clinton's goals to present a viable agenda on foreign policy agenda is not feasible for two reasons:1) As a business/media mogul, Trump has no strategy to assert any type of reasonable vision for much of the foreign policy currently dominated by terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa. The rise of China and the problematic presence of Russia alongside the emerging markets leave almost no room in Trump's agenda for improving America's role in the international community. With Trump, America's "legitimate" role on the global stage will likely lead to catastrophe. Trump has offered very little in terms of strategy toward tackling terrorism, aside from stating previously that he will advance strategic ties with Israel by recognizing Jerusalem as its capital. He will enhance America's rapport with Jordan and Egypt. He would also take the initiative to partner up with Russia to defeat Daish.2) Clinton, on the other hand, who was publicly impugned by the Republicans for her failure as secretary of state, showcased that she lacks the tools needed to get America out of the terrorism quagmire, which has been the bane of foreign policy's existence for more than a decade now. Trump's attacks about the "email controversy" portrayed Clinton as the weakest link. She admitted to her mistake to the public while trying to close the chapter. It was evident in the debate that as she showed off a poised smile and threw occasional laughs to thwart off an angry sniffing Trump, she did far better in keeping her cool than her discontented opponent. Yet that was not enough.Both candidates failed to address major foreign policy issues such as military troops sent to Iraq and the fight waged against al-Qaida? With Daish in the basket as well, today America has too many eggs in its basket and too many enemies at its doorsteps, while the chronic unrest inside the country begs to question whether America's strength and vitality is enough to bring an end to the dirt slinging of either candidate. Time will tell.But in the meantime, as terrible as this may sound, we have to be painstakingly honest. The first debate brought us closer to the realization that a major global power is crumbling between two inept candidates who lack any introspective approach to American foreign policy. The pros and cons of strategy, the consequences of actions and a retrospective analysis of the mistakes made in the past regarding foreign policy should serve as a road map for the future steps that need to be taken. The debate certainly lacked a visionary approach throughout because there was too much bickering and personal attacks which left no room for presenting a strategic vision on the urgent issues facing the foreign policy agenda.It is obvious that American foreign policy is neither lackluster nor does it have the potential to be so in the future. However, we are faced with a political gridlock which is not conducive to the formation of feasible solutions regarding the Middle East and North Africa.The efforts of a country whose national interests overseas have long been based on maintaining security with military force and the so-called dissemination of democratic ethos are now being rendered rotten and deplete.The American bargaining chip has failed internationally and for candidates like Clinton or Trump, putting an effort in reviving "the brand" across the board is in actuality a fruitless effort.By analyzing the situation the U.S. is now currently in, we can draw the following conclusion: As long as national security interests and the vision of the American government do not include solutions for state- and institution-building in countries it has invaded while also failing to establish, enforce or support the democratic freedoms it purports in those failed states, America's image will continue to sink and hit rock bottom.While the ensuing presidential debates in the coming weeks will focus on a range of issues, the major concern for much of the international community will continue to be national security and which candidate presents solutions to tackle this urgent problem.We shall see how this unravels.* Ankara based international relations specialist