It’s still many months until the Iowa caucuses and the Super Tuesday primaries, so presidential polls are pretty meaningless. Because the economy will obviously dominate the campaign, now is the time to insist that candidates focus equally on the national security and foreign policy issues that are in the minds of every voter. President Obama recently borrowed the title of a 2006 Newt Gingrich book — “Winning the Future” — and made it a theme of a budget speech. But neither Gingrich nor Obama even tried to answer the predicate question: How can you win the future unless you first secure it?
There are, as we’ve illustrated elsewhere in this section, severe threats to our security and that of our allies with which the next president will ignore at our peril. Most of them — terrorism, the ballistic missile threat, cyberwar, and Iran’s nuclear weapons program — have not been dealt with decisively or effectively in the Bush-Obama years.
Moreover, in Obama’s first term, the tools with which a president can measure and defeat those threats have been diminished. From the dysfunction of our intelligence community to the president’s announcement that $400 billion more should be cut from the Pentagon budget over the next decade, Obama’s policies have weakened America.
This poses a twofold challenge: first, to the Republican candidates who must make national security and foreign policy a focus of their campaigns; and second, to the media who must not allow any candidate — including the president — to pass through the campaign season without answering these most important questions.
To wit:
1. Obama has already made massive cuts in defense spending and proposed $400 billion in additional reductions over 10 years. Defense Secretary Gates said that those cuts would result in America having to abandon some defense roles, missions and capabilities.
What roles, missions and capabilities do you think we should abandon? Should America decline the role of a superpower?
2. In his May 19 speech, Obama premised American policy on the terror-sponsoring nations’ argument that only peace between Israel and the Palestinians can result in peace between the West and the Islamic world.
Do you accept that premise and, if not, on what facts and history will you base American policy in the Middle East?
3. Since Sept. 11, our intelligence community has twice been reorganized and we still lack the current, accurate and complete intelligence needed to deal with nations such as Syria, Iran, China, Venezuela and many others.
How will you reform our intelligence agencies so that foreign and military policy isn’t merely guesswork? Will you revive the intelligence gathering methods, including the harsh interrogation of terrorist prisoners that led us to Osama bin Laden?
4. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, most of our allies, including the NATO nations, have failed to invest adequately in their own defense. They prefer us to pay to defend both ourselves and them.
Will you tell our allies that they have to invest proportionally in our mutual defense and if they do not, they will not be able to count on us to defend them?
5. Nation-building has failed to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan, and our accomplishments there will probably evaporate as soon as American forces withdraw. Because we have not confronted the nations that sponsor terrorism, they will continue to do so.
Do you believe that the terror-sponsors are at war with us and, if so, how will you win that war? Do you believe nation-building is a failed strategy?
6. China now has enormous economic leverage over us, as do oil-exporting nations like Saudi Arabia. China is heavily engaged in cyberwar and is building its military at a frantic pace. Members of the Saudi royal family are still investing in terrorism.
How will you ensure that China and our oil suppliers don’t use their leverage to deny us our ability to ensure our nation’s security?
America’s role in the world is shrinking because our abilities to influence world events and secure our nation are slipping away. Most Americans — including those who we used to call “Reagan Democrats” — understand this and can be won over by a candidate who calls upon them to vote for a stronger, safer America.
Obama won the 2008 race by capitalizing on the mistakes of his predecessor and presenting a bold vision of economic change. To win next year, a Republican candidate could adopt that model to create a successful campaign strategy that combines economic issues with a bold vision for securing our nation.
Examiner contributor Jed Babbin was appointed deputy undersecretary of defense by President George H.W. Bush. He is the author of such best-selling books as “Inside the Asylum” and “In the Words of Our Enemies.”
