In their struggle for the upper hand on national security, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are emphasizing strikingly different themes – he as the bold and cunningly unpredictable strongman who will eliminate terrorism; she as the calm, conventional commander in chief who will manage all manner of crises.
Terrorism is Trump’s national security touchstone, and ISIS is his target. He promises to wipe it out.
Clinton accuses him of fearmongering and of denigrating the U.S. military as gutted and worn out. She presents herself as the anti-Trump.
“America’s strength doesn’t come from lashing out,” she said in accepting the Democratic nomination Thursday. “Strength relies on smarts, judgment, cool resolve, and the precise and strategic application of power.” By implication, Trump is cast as bombastic, scattershot, impulsive and fanciful.
National security has emerged as a key focus of the campaign.
Trump said he is best suited because he would be a deal-maker and deliberately unpredictable, thus making it more difficult for adversaries to counter his military or diplomatic moves. Clinton pitched her steadiness and depth of experience from eight years in the Senate and four years as Obama’s secretary of state.
Each has zeroed in on what many consider the most worrisome issues: terrorism and an assertive Russia. The next president, however, will face a wider range of problems, to include ending the war in Afghanistan, managing the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, coping with a rising China and ending a cycle of bloody instability in Iraq and Syria. There also are challenges in cyber warfare, nuclear weapons and the modernization of the U.S. military.
Trump calls his approach “America first,” meaning alliances and coalitions would not pass muster with him unless they produced a net benefit to the U.S. He drew rebukes from much of the national security establishment when he suggested in a recent newspaper interview that as president he might not defend certain NATO member countries against outside attack if they were falling short of the alliance’s defense spending targets. He also has been accused of being too easy on Vladimir Putin, the Russian president whom Trump has openly admired.
Clinton sees international partnerships as essential tools for using American influence and lessening the chances of war. That is an approach rooted in a U.S. tradition of bipartisan support for institutions such as NATO, whose value and future Trump said should not be taken for granted.
Trump has tried to keep his focus on fear. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention he decried “war and destruction.” He said the long-volatile and often violent Middle East is now “worse than ever,” suggesting Americans are increasingly at risk.
He mocks Clinton’s experience as a member of Obama’s war Cabinet, labeling her legacy at the State Department as “death, destruction, terrorism and weakness.”
Through her supporters, including retired military officers, Clinton has pushed back on Trump’s claim that he alone has the right formula for keeping America secure.