Presidential Hopefuls Avoid Specifics As Security Issues Drive Campaigns

Sea Power, Aug 2007 by Scully, Megan

Defense and homeland security will dominate the 2008 presidential campaigns, rivaling health care and a handful of other domestic topics as the central issues in the intense, prolonged battle for the White House.

But don't expect the candidates to get into the nitty-gritty areas of programs and spending - at least not yet, defense and political analysts say. Instead, Republican and Democratic hopefuls will focus on headline-grabbing issues, such as Iraq, Iran and, perhaps, the size of the U.S. military force, to try to stand out in the crowded field of contenders.

The candidates' primary goal in the national security arena will be to look strong, decisive and trustworthy, said Gordon Adams, the associate director of national security programs at the White House's Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton administration.

"The defense issue is a surrogate for strength. It's not about programs. It's not about overall spending levels. It's not about particular hardware cancellations. It's not about service shares [of the budget]. It's not about anything, really, that's substantive," Adams said. "It's about leadership and strength, which is what a candidate's trying to convey when a candidate says, Tm tough on defense.'"

Indeed, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney a top-tier Republican presidential candidate, jumped into the weeds a bit when he announced that he wants the defense budget to equal 4 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

But "nobody really noticed," said James Carafano, a defense and homeland security analyst at the Washington-based Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that has been pushing the GDP argument.

To differentiate diemselves from the other candidates in die broad field, Carafano said he expects presidential hopefuls to grab onto "bumper sticker issues" that will generate a lot of attention but may not, ultimately, be recommendations for a wise course of action. That could, however, get a contender in a lot of trouble should he or she eventually win the White House, he added.

Carafano also does not expect candidates to deliver many speeches like the one then- White House contender George W Bush delivered to Citadel cadets in September 1999. In his remarks, Bush laid out some of his military transformation plan - including earmarking at least 20 percent of the procurement budget for next-generation platforms.

Not all analysts, however, are as pessimistic about the field of candidates and the role national security will play in the debate. Dov Zakheim, a key player in Bush's 2000 campaign who later served as Pentagon comptroller, said it's too early for most candidates to push comprehensive national security platforms.

"There is such a large field of candidates that nobody really wants to be seen as getting into the weeds," said Zakheim, now a vice president at Booz Allen Hamilton.

At the same time, the debate so far has been dominated by Iraq, leaving little time or room for many other issues.

"Once we get past the surge, you'll see something coalescing," Zakheim said. The party primaries early next year, he added, "will really sort out who's who."

Among the top-tier Democratic candidates, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, N. Y., and Sen. Barack Obama, 111., support increasing the size of the Army and Marine Corps. Former Sen. John Edwards, meanwhile, has said he wants to create a military sized and equipped to meet the needs of the post-Iraq environment.

For the Republican leaders, Romney Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani have all supported increasing the size of the military.

Ultimately, successful candidates will talk about national security in the broader context of diplomacy and non-military intervention, said Jeff Bialos, the deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial affairs in the Clinton administration who had advised former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner before he dropped out of the presidential race last fall.

There also will be talk about working better with allies, an issue that could shed light on Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen's concept of a 1,000-ship navy, said Larry Korb, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress and the Pentagon's personnel chief during the Reagan administration. Mullen, who has been nominated to take over as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said he wants to align allied fleets into an informal alliance, or "1,000-ship navy," to enhance cooperation and communication and better protect the sea lanes.

"You're not going to get a hell of a lot of votes on that, but I do think that will come up as one way to maximize our potential," Korb said.

And there will be some discussion of homeland security. Democratic candidates, fearful of infringing on civil liberties, will most likely focus on "things," such as inspecting containers, Carafano said. Republicans, on the other hand, will focus on conducting investigations and going after terrorists.

Candidates also will certainly reach out to veterans and other similar groups, a key voting block for any candidate seeking to be strong on defense and national security issues. For instance, the Clinton camp has stood up the Veterans and Military Retirees for Hillary group, while Obama has put together a veterans group in Iowa to support his campaign.