By The Federalist (Politics) | Created at 2024-10-29 18:13:42 | Updated at 2024-10-30 09:26:07
4 days ago
Three years ago in June, I drove into Midtown Manhattan, scaled a skyscraper, and was whisked into a corner office to conduct an interview with the highest-profile subject of my career.
There before me, sitting at a desk in the eponymous tower where his unlikely and uniquely American rise from real-estate mogul to TV star to world-historical figure would begin, was former President Donald Trump.
The topic of discussion that day was Trump’s China policy. But I walked away from the interview struck by a deeper and more transcendent insight — an insight that may not be first and foremost in the minds of voters in the 2024 presidential election but perhaps ought to be.
It’s that we live in a dangerous world comprised of myriad enemies who wish to do us grave harm — regimes led by and commanding armies of liars, murderers, thieves, and thugs. Ultimately, one man, our commander-in-chief, stands above all others between America and these malign forces. There is no greater singular deterrent to catastrophe — or invitation to it.
Make the right choice in a commander-in-chief, and he will keep our enemies at bay. Make the wrong choice, and war, chaos, and misery will be our lot.
As critical as are the other matters likely to predominate in the minds of voters — from the economy and immigration to free speech — a president’s greatest responsibility, and the area over which he can exert by far the greatest influence, comes in defending American life and limb from the threats facing us.
During our conversation, the former president made a pivotal point about his approach to dealing with our foes. Trump quite clearly had no desire to commit American blood and treasure to fend off foes in far-off lands in forever wars.
But should those foes cross specific strategic red lines, the former president recounted to me, he made clear to his foreign counterparts that there would be unimaginable hell to pay, including for themselves and their most cherished interests. Trump would publicly detail some of these interactions. But they have gone largely unacknowledged and underappreciated in my view, despite being of the utmost importance.
We might say that a key part of the Trump doctrine was this: He would go not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. But should those monsters rear their ugly heads, he warned, he’d be more than prepared to rain MOABs down upon them — just for starters.
I believe that because of this posture — plus the Trump administration’s demonstration that it would make good on such threats through the use of overwhelming, disproportionate force in limited situations and a slew of policies buttressing both the rhetoric and military action — Trump successfully stared our enemies down. They would always operate constrained by the fear of devastating reprisals should they harm America and our interests. Minimally they would have to factor the threat of calamity into their plans. Trump’s unorthodoxy and lack of predictability likely only further deterred our adversaries.
The proof of the Trump doctrine was in the pudding. Russia did not invade Ukraine. Iran and its proxies waged no seven-front war against Israel, nor did they threaten America’s servicemen and interests, nor those of our allies and partners in the region. Foreign foes including the Chinese Communist Party, jihadist groups, and transnational criminal organizations did not overrun and exploit our borders.
The most consequential difference between the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations may well be seen in their approaches to and records on national security and foreign policy. The gap between the two sides — overwhelmingly in Trump’s favor — was entirely predictable and predicted.
If you want to have peace, you must show that you have the willingness and capability not only to go to war but to truly win it, to swiftly, decisively, and mercilessly crush the enemy. There is no substitute for strength, resolve, and victory.
Under the Obama-Biden-Harris foreign policy that prevailed before and after Trump, our enemies have been on the march not only because our leaders lack the will to combat them, but because they believe in appeasing if not actively aiding, abetting, and enabling them — thinking one can bribe the crocodiles into eating us last or, worse, that our enemies aren’t crocodiles at all.
Trump secured peace through strength while Obama-Biden-Harris effectively fomented war through weakness if not downright treachery. Yet the national security and foreign policy establishment conspired to destroy the former while supporting the latter, which ought to give the American people serious pause. In fact, it might speak to the need to elect those who will rein in the national security and foreign policy apparatus and ensure it is responsive to the American people.
This year we will vote for many different reasons, some philosophical, others political, and still others personal. But when it comes to voting for president, Americans should remember that above all other duties, a commander-in-chief’s most important one, and the one over which he has the greatest control, is keeping us safe in a dangerous world.
On that account, the record is clear about who will stand up to America’s enemies and who will fall before them.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack.
Ben Weingarten is editor at large for RealClearInvestigations. He is a senior contributor to The Federalist, columnist at Newsweek, and a contributor to the New York Post and Epoch Times, among other publications. Subscribe to his newsletter at weingarten.substack.com, and follow him on Twitter: @bhweingarten.
