The next commander in chief will have to face what has come to feel like a growing set of increasingly complex challenges.
The Taliban continues to threaten Afghanistan, where the U.S. military presence is set to slide from about 10,000 today to 8,400 by the end of President Obama’s term in the White House. Sectarian violence and the Islamic State group imperil Iraq. Syria is in ashes, inciting the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II. Iran, with which Obama struck a historic — and endlessly controversial — agreement to delay its nuclear ambitions, is a perpetual agitator throughout the Middle East. Rivals China and Russia are taking advantage of America’s focus on this region to bully their neighbors and double-down on strategic objectives.
And on and on and on.
Regardless of the outcome in November, the next president will have to walk a tightrope for the next four years. He or she must recognize that the United States has an inalienable responsibility to serve as a global leader. That means using diplomacy wisely and military force sparingly, and possessing the acumen to know which course of action is warranted and appropriate — always.
The United States must continue its campaign to destroy ISIS and to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the investment of American blood and treasure, those countries must never be allowed to drift again into the hands of international terrorists. At the same time, the next president can’t be easily provoked by the irresponsible, threatening behavior exhibited by loose cannons or otherwise unpredictable world leaders.
That’s especially true of America’s fragile relations with Iran, Russia and China.
Iran.
Even as Washington and Tehran work to implement their landmark nuclear accord, Iranian hardliners remain opposed to the U.S. presence in the Middle East. In recent weeks, five American warships have been the targets of dangerous Iranian harassment in international waters, clear attempts to provoke a response that could set off an international crisis.
Such moves have hardly dissuaded Pentagon leaders from continuing to send forces, including Navy carrier strike groups, to the Persian Gulf. U.S. military commanders have demonstrated impressive resolve, firing warning shots at the Iranian provocateurs while working to ward off a larger conflict.
Hillary Clinton has said she supports the nuclear deal because it bars Iran from developing weapons of mass destruction. But Iran’s behavior raises serious questions about its commitment to following the rules set forth in that deal, at least as they’ve been disclosed publicly.
When asked at the Sept. 7 Commander in Chief Forum whether Iran is “playing” the U.S., Clinton responded emphatically: “On the nuclear issue, no,” she declared, adding that her greater concern is “all the other malicious activities” — its ballistic missiles and support for nefarious organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, “being involved in Syria, Yemen and other places.”
“I would rather, as president, be dealing with Iran on all of those issues without having to worry as much about their racing for a nuclear weapon,” she said.
Yet it is far from clear how much merit that statement has, and that’s very troubling.
Late last month, allegations surfaced suggesting the U.S., along with other nations who negotiated the nuclear deal, agreed in secret to let Iran to exceed the limits on how much uranium it can stockpile, leveraging certain “exemptions.” As reported by the Washington Post and others, the Obama administration has denied such claims. But those talks remain confidential, making it nearly impossible to know for certain whose story is correct.
The next commander in chief must maintain an unwavering focus on keeping Iran nuclear-weapons free while continuing the U.S. commitment to allies in the region.
Russia.
Iran is hardly the only rival taunting the Obama administration. Vladimir Putin’s military has broken out the Cold War playbook to harass the U.S. and its allies in Eastern Europe after solidifying its takeover of Crimea from Ukraine. Russian fighters have buzzed U.S. warships and warplanes in the Black Sea. The latest run-in came Sept. 6, when a Russian jet flew as close as 10 feet from a Navy surveillance plane.
Equally concerning are reports that Putin’s cyber spies are behind several high-profile email hacks and endeavoring to disrupt the U.S. presidential election by creating a groundswell of public distrust.
The best answer to Putin’s aggression is a well-trained NATO force with combat-ready American forces. As Donald Trump and many former Pentagon bosses have argued, it is only fair that European nations pick up more of the cost of this standing force. That may be a reasonable request, but this is no time to question the relevance of this alliance. The next commander in chief needs to reassure America’s long-standing partners that the U.S. will not step back from the self-defense clause at the heart of the world’s most powerful treaty.
Putin is not someone the next commander in chief needs to get along with, as Trump has suggested. The Russian leader is a dangerous authoritarian who needs to be countered.
China.
Perhaps the most fraught balance will be trying to corral an ambitious China.
The world’s most populated country seems intent on solidifying claims that extend to most of the East and South China seas amid a surge of nationalism. That puts Chinese leaders on a collision course with the U.S. and many neighboring countries, including Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, concerned that Beijing will chase at all costs its claims to man-made islands within vital shipping lanes.
The next commander in chief must convince China to step back from its territorial grabs, again without prompting a military conflict. The mission there needs to focus on helping China build a professional military, peacefully and responsibly.
As with other troubled parts of the world, the U.S. must stay focused on ensuring the Asia-Pacific region remains safe and prosperous. That’s going to require a strategic, steady leader in the White House.
