Joe Biden’s recent remarks at a Seattle fundraiser that, if elected, Barack Obama will be “tested” by an international crisis within his first six months in office underscore the importance of both experience and credibility when selecting a commander-in-chief. As Bill and Hillary Clinton both noted during the Democratic primary, now is not the time for America to be “rolling the dice” on a president. In the conduct of foreign policy, credibility matters. Statesmen perceived as weak or inexperienced are more likely to invite aggression than those perceived as strong, decisive and credible leaders. There is a difference between popularity and credibility. And if deterrence fails, it is credible leaders who are in a better position generate effective responses. With respect to credibility, this year’s presidential candidates couldn’t be more different. On one side is Barack Obama, the untested, first-term senator from Illinois. On the other side is John McCain, a battle-hardened senator with impeccable national security credentials.
History has shown us repeatedly that there is a direct correlation between the behavior of America’s adversaries and their perception of the American president. Recall the Iran hostage crisis where the Iranian leadership exploited the inexperience of President Jimmy Carter. With his credibility reduced to nothing, the hostages remained in captivity for 444 days. Or consider the June 1961 meeting between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna, where Krushchev demoralized the inexperienced new president, reducing his credibility, inviting the Soviet actions which eventually led to the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. Of course, the classic example is Adolf Hitler’s belief that neither Britain nor France would respond to his repeated provocations during the 1930s.
Credibility is the cornerstone of deterrence. To deter an adversary, one’s threats must be believable. In others words, to influence the behavior of an adversary, the adversary must be convinced that a leader is willing to carry out his or her threats. Then, the adversary decides that the costs of the potential actions are too great and is thus deterred.
“Mark my words: It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Watch, we’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy,” Biden told supporters at the Seattle fundraiser. Biden makes an important observation. Recent history supports Biden’s claim. Both the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred in the first years of the Clinton and Bush administrations. This begs the question: Is Barack Obama ready to be commander-in-chief? A recent poll conducted by the Military Times found that 68 percent of active-duty and retired servicemen and women support McCain, while just 23 percent support Barack Obama. Polling still indicates that most Americans believe that John McCain is more prepared to be commander-in-chief than his opponent, Barack Obama. But what is the perception among America’s adversaries? While it is difficult to measure, we can assume that their judgments will be informed by the candidates’ life experiences, professional record, discourse and a host of immeasurable intangibles.
Building a perception of credibility relies on more than eloquent oration. It is a matter of experience and record. John McCain has built his credibility on a lifetime of service to the United States and on a record of making difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions for the good of the nation.
