candidates views on national security

The United States currently faces more danger than at any time since the conclusion of the Second World War.

However, in the candidates’ debates, and in media coverage overall, questions and reviews about the international perspectives of the two contenders for the job of commander in chief, and their views on foreign affairs and national security in general, are few and far between. At a time when global affairs are more unsettled than at any time over the prior seven decades, that lack of appropriate emphasis by the press has not served the public well.

Trump and Clinton portray each other as unqualified for the role as America’s top policy maker on foreign affairs. Clinton emphasizes Trump’s inexperience and his blunt language. Trump points to America’s deterioration in influence and military strength during the period when Clinton served as Secretary of State.

Here is a basic summary of the candidates’ broad positions, gleaned from their speeches, position papers, and various statements:

Clinton outlines her policy in several key points: Continuing traditional relationships with allies, embracing diplomacy and development, being “firm but wise” with rivals, and enacting an overall strategy for confronting terrorists. She strongly supports the Iran nuclear deal, of which she was an architect. She would increase the number of refugees from Syria, and support more opportunities for illegal immigrants to move into the U.S. mainstream. Her position on U.S. military strength is somewhat more dovish than President Obamas’. Of particular note is her reluctance to support generally accepted levels of funding for the maintenance and modernization of the American nuclear deterrent. She has not taken a clear stand on international trade agreements, both supporting and opposing the Transpacific Partnership at various times. She mixes in domestic policy with her international perspectives by calling for greater economic equality at home.

Trump’s basic approach to foreign affairs and national security includes increasing military spending and insuring that U.S. conventional and nuclear armed forces are the world’s strongest; pressuring allies to pull their own weight, (often in blunt language) and if they do so, providing substantial U.S. support to deter threats to those nations; opposing the Iran nuclear arms deal; halting illegal immigration; and stopping the flow of refugees from areas that threaten the U.S. with terrorism. He would use ground troops if necessary to combat ISIS, but would refrain from becoming involved in foreign disputes which America has no stake in. He believes that international trade agreements have harmed more than helped the American economy and the American worker.
These seasonal low priced viagra changes make ear swell, Puss generates and discomfort persists. This drug enable a man to achieve and maintain an erection raindogscine.com overnight cheap viagra and as I said ED can be treated with some ED drugs. But, they were asked for ceasing this remedy and concentrate on tadalafil pills internet-based psychological intervention program instead. However, there it is not a promising or predictable mode of treatment, as many users experience minimal effectiveness even with http://raindogscine.com/?attachment_id=351 viagra without regular usage of Minoxidil.
There have been specific areas of very sharp disagreement between the two:

Trump points out that due to the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Russia, Moscow now, for the first time in history, possesses the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal. Clinton emphasizes that Trump has frequently stated that Putin has restored Russian pride.

Clinton notes that the Iran nuclear deal prevented Tehran’s near-imminent acquisition of an atomic bomb. Trump counters by noting that the agreement freely allows Iran to build nuclear weapons within the next decade, and provided the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism with a vast amount of funding which could be used to further support those activities.

Trump has endorsed a more muscular policy stance towards China’s pacific adventurism, while Clinton tilts towards a more diplomatic approach.

Perhaps the greatest overall debate between the two contenders is the battle of Clinton’s claim to significant experience versus Trump’s outlining of significant policy failures under her watch. Clinton contrasts her eight years as the first lady and key advisor to President Clinton, her tenure in the U.S. Senate, and her role as Secretary of State to Trump’s inexperience. Trump counters with the unprecedented decline in America’s fortunes and the numerous missteps that occurred during her tenure, including the transfer of nuclear supremacy to Russia, the dissent into chaos in the Middle East and the rise of terrorism, and the growing aggressiveness of China.

Quick Analysis

The Danger of Weakness

Iran’s missile attack on Israel, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s maritime assaults on the Philippines are not isolated issues. They are the direct result of the projection of weakness that began with the Obama Administration and reasserted by President Biden. Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang are strengthening their armed forces and meeting closely to strengthen their ability to work as a unified front to engage in current and planned armed assaults against the United States While the U.S. has protected its ships in the Mideast from attacks and worked with Israeli forces to shoot down the Iranian missiles and drones, its has taken little action to deflect further attacks other than pinpoint attacks on the antiship launch sites. Biden has informed Israel that America would not assist Netanyahu in any counterattack that would dissuade future assaults. The Axis partners perceived Biden’s feckless withdrawal from Afghanistan, his excessively hesitant provision of advanced weaponry to Ukraine, his reluctance to confront China despite numerous serious provocations as indications of an Administration that does not take military threats seriously, similar to the nonresponse by the Obama Administration’s failure to respond even diplomatically to Putin’s takeover of Crimea and Xi’s invasion of the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone, which was condemned by the World Court at the Hague. Regarding Ukraine, U.S. Representative Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has stated “Since the start of the war, President Biden’s Ukraine policy has been plagued by hesitation. Every major weapons system the United States has provided—from Stingers, to Abrams, to ATACMS —only came after serious Congressional pressure. And it usually arrived months late and in insufficient numbers.” Of course, political wrangling tying Ukraine aide to attempts to get Biden to reverse his open border policy didn’t help matters. Those nonactions, combined with the President’s inadequate defense budget proposals and the reality that the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force will be smaller at the end of his first term than at the beginning of it have greenlighted aggression across the globe. In April, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, questioned Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Q. Brown, Jr., about the failures of President Biden’s proposed defense budget and the need to update America’s strategic posture, including by modernizing its nuclear deterrent. Biden’s increased defense cooperation with several Pacific nations including Japan, Australia, New Zealand North Korea and the Philippines, as well as his approval of the admission of Sweden and Finland into NATO are all excellent moves. But it can also be seen as a way to push off America’s role as defender of the free world onto other nations. Michael Rubin, writing for the American Enterprise Institute noted that “Aggressors perceive weakness when they see Biden. At issue is not only his physical frailty and declining mental acuity. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan looked shell-shocked after Chinese Politburo Member Yang Jiechi and Foreign Minister Wang Yi dressed them down in a March 2021 summit in Anchorage. The two Biden aides came in overconfident and cocky and did not understand how much older Chinese officials would both perceive them and test them. The desperation with which Biden, Blinken, and Sullivan approached Iran nuclear negotiations and hostage-taking further solidified the perception of America’s enemies that Washington was profoundly unserious and that its redlines ephemeral. Mishandling the Afghanistan withdrawal will haunt America for decades…Irredentists have taken notice. Not only does Iran believe it and its proxies Hamas and Hezbollah can act with impunity, but so do many other dictators.” Seth Cropsey, in an article for The Hill explains that “…searches for a chimerical relaxation of tensions with China where none is to be found except in Washington’s accession to Beijing’s wishes. The efforts imply a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of statecraft. President Joe Biden and his closest advisers seem to believe that their role is to win a war of words, and that the hard edge of statecraft — military force — is an aberration, not a fundamental reality of international politics. The danger is that the Biden administration’s genteel convictions will smooth the nation’s path into a much larger and more dangerous contest of wills.” If Biden fails to support Israel in its response to Iran, the “Axis of Evil” powers may perceive it to be a prominent example that the current White House has embraced a neo-pacifist philosophy that frees them to take hostile action.