Daily Times

Writing in his newsletter Inflection Points, my good friend and close colleague Fred Kempe, President and CEO of the Atlantic Council, speculates that whoever Americans elect on November 5th may indeed become a wartime president.

Referring to the world in November 1940 just a year before the attack on Pearl Harbor forced America to declare war against Japan, Kempe fears that some combination of actions by China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, exacerbated by the conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Ukraine, could escalate to a broader regional or global war. Kempe correctly notes that neither Kamala Harris nor Donald Trump has any specific plans for dealing with this potentially explosive witches’ brew of crises.

Trump has claimed he will solve the war in Ukraine. But he offers only a promise and no reasonable plan of action, asserting that his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin will offer the opportunity for negotiations. But what would form the terms of that negotiation and where borders would be drawn and assured is entirely missing.

Trump has claimed he will solve the war in Ukraine. But he offers only a promise and no reasonable plan of action.

Critics despair that Trump would sacrifice Ukraine’s autonomy and sovereignty in peace talks. He has opposed the support given to Ukraine by the US and NATO, arguing those monies would be best spent at home. And Trump holds Kyiv in large part responsible for the war. To more objective observers who respect history and fact, these are delusions. But an America First agenda resonates with a slice of Americans who question why hundreds of billions of dollars have gone to Ukraine and not to citizens in great need of help.

Harris has been remarkably silent on her intentions, only diverting from the Biden policies towards Ukraine and Gaza in emphasizing the imperative of imposing a ceasefire to halt the bloodshed and violence in Gaza. Nor has she been called to account for her foreign policy views regarding China, North Korea and the turbulence that threatens global security.

The same absence of content applies to the state of America’s defences. By remaining silent on the state of defence, Harris implicitly supports the Biden plan, ignoring the strategic-budget-force level imbalances leading to less military capability. Trump despairs over how Harris-Biden’s infectious “woke” agenda has desiccated defence but with no evidence.

If Kempe is correct, both candidates have not provided enough information and ideas for Americans to understand how each would serve as a wartime president. However, that same criticism applies to the four presidents who served in this century. If Trump learned anything from his four years and Harris from her vice presidency on being a wartime president, as noted, that is not obvious and very questionable.

Even counting generals who served as president, it is debatable as to which of our leaders came into office with the right stuff to serve as commander-in-chief. In 1940 as FDR approached running for an unprecedented third term, he had experienced World War I and an appointment as Assistant Navy Secretary. Truman likewise served and then was elected to the Senate where he made his mark on the Armed Services Committee.

Kennedy, Nixon, Ford and Bush ’41 all served in World War II. But since then and beginning with Bill Clinton, none of our presidents had wartime service. Bush ’43 oversaw two failed wars; Obama, Trump and Biden had to deal with the residues from both.

Whether the current wars and conflicts could escalate, the only qualifications the next president will have arose from time in the White House. For Trump, his America First agenda reinforces the intent to reduce the US overseas presence. However, Trump offers no plan nor an assessment of the possible consequences and their impact on global security. Harris remains an enigma.

Optimists hope that what Trump says is not necessarily what he means or what he will do if in power. Similarly, optimists hope Harris is a version of Harry Truman who will rise to any challenge. We all recognize the softness of the word hope and the prospect that this is naive.

But, to use a trite phrase, in America, we are where we are. That is far from comforting. And concerns are not relieved by the absence of any ideas of whom the next president will appoint to the most senior national security positions. That in turn raises a set of critical issues.

Suppose as in 2000, a president is not immediately elected. Any delays will defer the time both candidates have to form a government. That too is not comforting.

The writer is a senior advisor at Washington, DC’s Atlantic Council and a published author.