Being President of the United States is more than just running our country and dealing with its people’s affairs, it also comes along with foreign territory- diplomacy. And as well as having the title of Mr./Mrs. President, they will also become the Commander In-Chief; tonight the country got its first look at how the candidates lined up for that position during the Commander In-Chief Forum. Here is what I took away from where the candidates stood on some of the key topics discussed tonight.

When asked about how they planned to go about combating ISIS, Donald Trump was to the point. Hillary Clinton danced around the idea of actually putting boots on the ground because she saw how ineffective that was during the Obama administration when they entered Iraq and Afghanistan. But ultimately they had the same idea just in different words, the gist of it was- air strikes and high intelligence groups (special missions).

Trump was strongly against any intervention in Libya and was strongly suggesting the point that never had he mentioned anything about Libya before. Clinton falls into the same boat of not wanting to intervene but with conditions. She believes we obliged to support them in providing our ‘unique capabilities’ that we have but European countries should make the first move before we offer any guidance.

The candidates were polar opposite on where they stood on waterboarding. Trump was more than enthusiastic, his words were “We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding.” He wanted to go full force, and frankly, even felt that waterboarding was a mild torture compared to what happens in the Middle East. Clinton did not agree. She felt that it caused more harm than good and that torture in general was just not the way to go.

In terms of who had the best views on these militaristic topics, I would call it a tie, I was back and forth between the two. I think that Trump definitely is more action orientated when talking about fighting ISIS while Clinton has more structured thoughts on how torture and interrogations should be handled.