In order to avoid years of political obscurity, Republican candidates should shift their focus during the first presidential debate towards policy matters. It remains to be seen whether they will succeed in doing so, or if the media will be preoccupied with Donald Trump’s activities and legal issues. However, for voters who still prioritize policy and governance, I have put forth some questions for the aspiring nominees.
One of the most crucial inquiries is how the candidates perceive America’s rightful place in the global arena. To sustain our way of life, with all the benefits of a thriving economy and stable society, we require a strong international position. If we fail or refuse to safeguard our national interests abroad, including economic and political interests, as well as those of our allies, our nation will decline. Candidates who fail to recognize the correlation between a proactive international stance and a strong domestic society are fundamentally flawed.
Ronald Reagan famously described his national security vision as “Peace through strength.” He understood that advancing US interests in a dangerous world is best achieved by deterring our adversaries from aggression and making it clear that the costs of such aggression would outweigh any potential benefits. Implicit in his approach was the willingness to use force to protect our interests and allies if deterrence failed, as deterrence without credibility is ineffective. Consequently, Reagan oversaw a substantial defense buildup across the board, which included enhancing nuclear capabilities and improving the pay and benefits of servicemembers.
Today, Reagan would criticize the isolationist sentiment that is spreading among Republicans, including some presidential candidates. He recognized that a robust US military is the only reliable means to protect and advance our interests, as well as to contribute to peace and security internationally. Our strength and alliance systems benefit not only ourselves, but also global stability and economic growth. Reagan did not view strong American defenses as favors to other nations or burdens to be borne on their behalf. He firmly believed that allies should fulfill their obligations to defend “the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples,” as stated in NATO’s treaty.
The immediate and significant challenges to Reagan’s “Peace through strength” approach include the situations in Ukraine and Taiwan, but there are countless other international threats as well. Presidential candidates should be questioned about how they would respond to unprovoked aggression, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s imminent threat to Taiwan. Russian belligerence not only endangers Ukraine but also neighboring European NATO members, who are now gravely concerned. China is closely monitoring any signs of US weakness in Ukraine, as it would undermine Taiwan’s ability to resist invasion or blockade. Additionally, candidates should address how they plan to handle Iran and North Korea, both as de facto partners in the Beijing-Moscow axis and as independent threats due to their nuclear proliferation and terrorism activities.
Importantly, the practical side of pursuing “Peace through strength” after years of inadequate military spending is that defense budgets must be significantly increased. Given the unchecked federal deficits that pose a threat to our economy and necessitate major reductions in domestic spending, higher allocations for defense mean even deeper cuts domestically. While sound policies promoting economic growth can help alleviate this, candidates must acknowledge that global threats demand substantial increases in military spending, including warship construction, enhancing combat-arms capabilities, and expanding efforts in space, cyberspace, and asymmetric warfare both defensively and offensively. Candidates who are unwilling to confront these difficult realities fall short.
Finally, candidates should be pressed on how they plan to address China, which poses an existential threat to the West in this century. There should be vigorous discussion during the debate on American strategy towards China, with room for bold suggestions. However, any candidate who adopts the misguided belief that Europe, the Middle East, and even the Western Hemisphere are of lower priority compared to East Asia and can be disregarded would be disqualified. Wherever America downsizes or withdraws, our adversaries will capitalize on the opportunity.
It would be a great misfortune and missed opportunity if national security questions received inadequate attention during Wednesday’s debate. We hope that the candidates themselves will raise these important issues, even if the moderators fail to do so.
(Note: John Bolton was national security adviser to President Donald Trump, 2018-’19, and US ambassador to the United Nations, 2005-’06.)
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
