Republicans have historically gotten better polling numbers on issues of national security leading up to elections. This year there has been discussion by the candidates about the issue but specifics have not been forthcoming. The economy will always be the number one issue as voters are, and should be, concerned about jobs and providing for their families. In this election cycle, however, national security issues are just as important because: 1) the safety and security of the homeland is in doubt and 2) a lapse in security now has a greater potential than ever to negatively impact the economy.
Republican candidates have the chance to distance themselves from each other and from the Democratic field if voters can be convinced that their specific approach to national security issues is the right approach.
Now, as we head into the second Republican debate, what are the three questions I would like for the candidates to address?
First, the Obama Administration’s most recent Syria strategy is to "train and equip" Syrians as soldiers to fight the Assad regime and either bring it down or bring it to the negotiating table. The goal at the end of this year was to have 5,400 such soldiers trained and fighting on the ground in Syria. Today, we have spent half a billion taxpayer dollars on the program and trained 54 soldiers (all of whom are reportedly dead, captured, or have abandoned their posts). Thus, we are back to square one in Syria.
So my first question would be: "How would you deal with the Syrian conflict issue?"
Second, the world of cyber security is becoming more and more dangerous and Americans’ assets are becoming more and more vulnerable. Nation state hackers like the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and North Koreans are becoming more sophisticated. While they continue to intrude and steal personal and classified information, they have now gone a step further to seek to destroy property per the Sony attack. The most recent concern is even the threat of an attack that can manipulate economic data. Terror groups like Al Qaeda, ISIL, and others are being trained in computer skills and may soon have the capability to carry out attacks that could cripple our economy. The U.S. response to attacks has consistently been to react in a defensive manner. Secretary Carter and Admiral Rogers have recently laid down public markers to look at taking offensive action as a response.
So question two would be: "What is your thought on whether or not we should go on the offensive when attacked in cyber space?"
Lastly, sequestration is slowly bleeding our military. We are looking at the smallest Army of ground troops we have seen in decades. The U.S. Navy has 273 ships, the smallest number of ships since the fleet stood at 275 in 1916. According to Air Force Secretary Deborah James and Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, fiscal restraints are causing the Air Force to be on track to reduce the size of its force to the smallest in its history. The current Administration seems content to leave sequestration in place.
My final question would, thus, be: "What do you intend to do about the issue of across the board funding cuts to our military caused by sequestration?"
