Oct. 23 (UPI) — Writing in his newsletter Inflection Points, my good friend and close colleague Fred Kempe, President and CEO of the Atlantic Council, speculates that whomever Americans elect on Nov. 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 some combination of actions by China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, exacerbated by conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Ukraine, could escalate to a broader regional or global war. Furthermore, Kempe correctly notes that neither Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris nor Republican hopeful 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 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.
Critics despair that Trump would sacrifice Ukraine’s autonomy and sovereignty in peace talks. He has opposed the support given to Ukraine by the United States 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 about her intentions, only diverting from the Biden policies toward Ukraine and Gaza by 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 defenses. By remaining silent on the state of defense, 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 defense, 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 previous four presidents who served in this century. If Trump learned anything about being a wartime president in his four years in office, and Harris during her vice presidency, as noted, it is not obvious.
Even counting generals who served as president, it is debatable as to which of our leaders came into office with the right skills to serve as commander-in-chief. In 1940, as Franklin D. Roosevelt approached running for an unprecedented third term, he had experienced World War I and an appointment as Assistant Navy Secretary. Harry Truman likewise served and then was elected to the Senate, where he made his mark on the Armed Services Committee.
Presidents John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush all served in World War II. But beginning with Bill Clinton, none of our subsequent presidents have had wartime service. George W. Bush oversaw two failed wars; Barack Obama, Trump and Biden had to deal with the fallout from both.
Whether or not the current wars and conflicts escalate, the next president’s only qualifications will come from time in the White House. For Trump, his America First agenda reinforces the intent to reduce U.S. 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 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 Truman who will rise to any challenge. We all recognize the softness of the word hope and the prospect of its naivety.
But, to use a trite phrase, in America, we are where we are. That is far from comforting. It is also unknown who 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.
Harlan Ullman is UPI’s Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished Columnist, a senior advisor at Washington’s Atlantic Council, the prime author of “shock and awe” and author of “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large.” Follow him @harlankullman. The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
