This is a corrected version of a story that was published online Dec. 21. It corrects the number of Democratic debates that have occurred.
Saturday night's third national Democratic debate offered fewer national security fireworks than the Republican event just few days earlier, but it did offer a deeper look at the defense philosophy of the candidates.
The Democratic presidential hopefuls argued for what they see as a more measured but still forceful response to the Islamic State group and other overseas threats, promising a safer America but also one that upholds values of openness and inclusion.
Here are the biggest takeaways from the event:
None of the Democrats want ground troops in Iraq
Unlike the GOP field, where several candidates have called for U.S. combat forces to lead the fight against the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS, none of the three remaining Democratic candidates support such a move.
"It would be a strategic mistake for the United States to put ground combat troops in, as opposed to special operators, as opposed to trainers, because that is exactly what ISIS wants," former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.
"It's absolutely wrong policy for us to be even imagining we're going to end up putting tens of thousands of American troops into Syria and Iraq to fight ISIS."
Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders promised "a new foreign policy, one that takes on ISIS, one that destroys ISIS, but one that does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley called for leaders to "increase the battle tempo" but stopped well short of calling for more military action in the region, instead advocating more intelligence sharing and coalition building.
Democrats attacked Trump more than each other
At the debate, Sanders chastised Clinton for oversimplifying regional problems in the Middle East, and O'Malley attacked both of his rivals for lacking responsible plans for the region. But all three saved their best barbs for the GOP frontrunner.
O'Malley said long-term victory over ISIS and other terrorist groups will come "only if we hold true to the values and the freedoms that unite us, which means we must never surrender them to terrorists, must never surrender to the fascist pleas of billionaires with big mouths."
The shot was in direct response to business mogul Donald Trump's plans to bar all Muslims from entering America as an anti-terrorism measure.
Clinton accused Trump of "becoming ISIS's best recruiter."
"They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists," she said. "So I want to explain why this is not in America's interest to react with this kind of fear and respond to this sort of bigotry."
Trump has already called those accusations false and demanded an apology from Clinton.
Sanders sounds like Rand Paul
The independent Vermont senator and his conservative colleague from Kentucky do not agree on much politically, but they both represent their party's isolationist wing in the current debates.
Sanders pushed back on Clinton's plans for increased military involvement and no-fly zones in Syria, saying that too many U.S. leaders are distracted in the fight against ISIS.
"Regime change is easy, getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after," he said. "In my view, what we need to do is put together broad coalitions to understand that we're not going to have a political vacuum filled by terrorists."
In the GOP debate, Paul had almost identical comments.
"What we have to decide is whether or not regime change is a good idea," he said. "It's what the neoconservatives have wanted. It's what the vast majority of those on the stage want.
"Out of regime change you get chaos. From the chaos you have seen repeatedly the rise of radical Islam."
Clinton still wants a no-fly zone
President Obama has explicitly rejected the idea of a no-fly zone in Iraq, but Clinton has made it a center point of her ISIS strategy. She repeated that call on Saturday.
"One of the reasons why I have advocated for a no-fly zone is in order to create those safe refuges within Syria, to try to protect people on the ground both from (Syrian President Bashar) al-Assad's forces, who are continuing to drop barrel bombs, and from ISIS. And of course, it has to be deconflicted with the Russians, who are also flying in that space."
She also argued it could help de-escalate problems with Russia in the region "if they will begin to turn their military attention away from going after the adversaries of Assad toward ISIS and put the Assad future on the political and diplomatic track, where it belongs."
O'Malley says the military needs more help
"We do our military a disservice when we don't greatly dial up the investment that we are making in diplomacy and human intelligence, and when we fail to dial up properly the role of sustainable development in all of this," O'Malley said at the event.
His solution is more intelligence gathering, more coalition partnerships and acting "in a much more whole-of-government approach."
He also promised to make the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development a Cabinet member, arguing the work done by that agency needs to be better highlighted.
Leo covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He has covered Washington, D.C. since 2004, focusing on military personnel and veterans policies. His work has earned numerous honors, including a 2009 Polk award, a 2010 National Headliner Award, the IAVA Leadership in Journalism award and the VFW News Media award.
