Washington Post - The Governors' Case on Foreign Policy

News Article

By Jennifer Rubin

Time and again, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has shown how much he knows about foreign policy. But the question is whether that is enough to clear the bar as a credible commander in chief. The biggest obstacles to his argument on the superiority of senators are the other governors in the race. Their argument goes: We know as much as we need to about foreign policy and have what is really needed -- tested leadership skills. Rubio needs to be prepared when one of the governors turns to him and says he'd be happy to hire him as Defense secretary. In other words, knowing the most gets you an important job -- but not necessarily the top job.

That is the case Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker made on "Face the Nation," where he showed steely calm and confidence discussing topics that once tripped him up. On his praise of Ronald Reagan firing the air-traffic controllers on strike:

For me, looking at that kind of leadership he set the tone, not just domestically with that action he sent message around the world, as you just read off, I think not only to our allies that this was someone who was serious and could be trusted but in combination with our adversaries it sent a clear message not to mess with him. Combine that clear leadership position he took early in his administration with the build-up in the military, much like we need today to get back to a minimum of at least a Gates-level budget for Department of Defense. You combine that and what he did in the '80s with the leadership he showed early on in his term, that's why I believe in many regards we had one of the lowest levels of military engagement not because President Reagan was afraid to engage, but because our adversaries knew he would if needed. I think that made for a safer world that was peace through strength personified.

And on Iran he explained, "I think if we're going to have negotiations, we should have them on our terms not on theirs. To me we need to dismantle the illicit nuclear infrastructure they have. That has to be clear. It's a real threat not just to Israel, but I talked to leaders from the Persian Gulf states, Sunni states who have a very real concern in that regard. Secondly, they need to provide full disclosure, transparency and immediate ability to inspect, which I don't think we fully have right now under at least the parameters of this supposed deal. Third, we need to make sure that they deal with others in the region. … I think you've seen their influence in terms of Shiite militias not only in Iraq but obviously their involvement in Syria, now with the Houthis in Yemen -- those are the sorts of things we need to crack down on."

As for governors, he argued, "So I think it's not just about past experiences, it's about leadership. As a governor you have to put cabinet in place and hopefully you pick people as smart or smarter than you on any given topic. I think that's something that is required of a successful president, is putting people in place, be it secretary of Defense, national security advisors, secretary of State, and others and then having good sense to listen to them and to others in the chain of command in the military, consulting with the Congress, and all those sorts of things are important to the president. I think successful governors in either party have to do that every single day."

Former Texas governor Rick Perry is making a similar case. He's demonstrated mastery of foreign policy in speeches, op-ed's, videos and interviews. And echoing Walker, he argues: "If you're flying from Boston to London, you want to be flying with somebody that gives a heck of a good presentation on aerodynamics and why the airplane stays in the air, that has you on the edge of your seat with excitement because they're such a great speaker … but they got 150 hours of flying time? Or do you want to be with that grizzled, old, 20,000-hour captain who's taken that airplane back and forth thousands of times safely?" Moreover, Perry has a card no other contender has -- his military record. There is nothing logically that makes one senator out of 100 -- who no matter how astute is not a decision-maker -- superior to an informed governor, especially one with a military background.

Voters will assess the presidential hopefuls not only on what they know but also how well they project a sense of command and how consistent they stick to their guns. The decisions the next president will make -- backing away from a flawed Iran deal, fully funding the military, revamping our strategy against the Islamic State, etc. -- are not going to be clear-cut, nor are they going to be popular in some cases. The voters should want someone to do the right thing even when it's hard and when the liberal media is screeching. They will want someone whom they trust to select the advice from top aides who don't agree with one another. It is hard to assess how candidates will perform under that sort of pressure but we can look at past decisions (did they make foolish decisions? did they persevere when things went badly? did they hire the best people?).

So perhaps the real hypothetical for the voters is this: If faced with the anti-war fervor even in his or her own party and opposition of much of the military, who among the 2016 hopefuls would you have trusted to go outside the military bureaucracy, ignore the defeatist Iraq Study Group report and make the right call on the surge? That is the guy or gal they should pick as president.

Source