U.S. presidents have more power over foreign policy than, arguably, any other area of government. This has been particularly true in the age of wars via executive order, in which for decades, Congress has continued to surrender its constitutional duty to declare war to the whim of presidents of both parties.

Six Democrats battled to become the next commander in chief during Wednesday night’s debate in Las Vegas, and it seemed not a single candidate uttered one word about U.S. foreign policy. This oversight, to put it lightly, occurred during a time when America’s longest war in Afghanistan lumbers on, U.S. soldiers continue to die , and a recent blockbuster report by the Washington Post revealed that political and military leaders at all levels believe the war is unwinnable. (Oh, and that officials misled the public about the war for years.)

The closest these six Democratic candidates — Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Pete Buttigieg, Mike Bloomberg, and Joe Biden — came to touching on foreign policy were fleeting mentions of the 2015 Paris Agreement that President Trump withdrew the United States from in 2017.

Granted, there also wasn’t a single question from NBC’s moderators about foreign policy. But for a party that largely defined itself by criticizing Republican President George W. Bush’s Iraq War a decade-and-a-half ago, accompanied, at the time, by some of the largest anti-war protests in U.S. and global history, this is astounding. A 2004 general election debate between Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry jumped into America’s failing foreign policy at the time almost immediately .

Obviously, 2020 is not 2004. The Iraq War was a more pressing issue in the public mind in 2004, unfortunately than Afghanistan is today. The war might not be on the minds of many Americans, but it remains inescapable for so many soldiers and veterans .

Foreign policy is a primary issue in any era for any would-be commander in chief. It should at least be discussed.

Bloomberg, Biden, and to varying or lesser degrees, Klobuchar, have taken more hawkish positions than Sanders and Warren. Buttigieg has been murkier on the issue, but one might say he also leans hawk . A debate that delved into foreign policy Wednesday might have given voters a better idea of where each candidate stood on matters of war and peace. And that’s incredibly important.

But let’s be honest. The anti-war passions that gave the Democratic Party its primary identity during the Bush-era virtually evaporated during Barack Obama’s presidency and only emerge today when Democrats feel like they can use foreign policy to attack Trump. Democrats are vacillating. One moment, they seem to want war with Russia , and the next, they claim to be terrified Trump could start World War III with Iran. Most of their sentiments on these fronts are about partisanship first and actual foreign policy second.

The most foreign policy has been discussed during the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries has been when candidate Tulsi Gabbard, a Hawaii representative, was present on the debate stage. She has consistently led with the issue, similar to Democrats circa 2003 , and has injected foreign policy into the discussion whether her competitors were discussing it or not.

Based on Wednesday night's debate, when Gabbard is not there, the candidates are not going to broach the vital issue. That's a shame.

Trump or one of the six Democrats who debated on Wednesday is almost certain to become America’s next commander in chief. Voters deserve to know what each thinks that means.