Getty Images War Room Why Trump Fails—and Clinton Passes—the Commander-in-Chief Test “I’m with her,” says one of America’s leading intelligence and special operations officials, because the GOP nominee’s views put the nation at risk.

Michael Vickers, a former Special Forces and CIA Operations Officer, was Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, Low Intensity Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities under President George W. Bush and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under President Barack Obama.

Three months ago, my former boss and mentor, retired Defense Secretary Bob Gates, questioned whether Donald Trump has the temperament to be president. While I fully share Secretary Gates’ concerns about Trump’s disposition, I am equally troubled by the Republican nominee’s views on national security, which he laid out again at a startling news conference on Wednesday, including the bizarre claim that “NATO changed their whole program because of me” and he might let Russia keep Crimea. He also appeared to call upon Moscow to launch another cyber-invasion of the U.S. so as to find Hillary Clinton’s "30,000 emails that are missing."

America today faces three principal national security threats: from radical Islamists, who seek to terrorize Americans and overthrow the existing order in the Middle East; from a resurgent Russia, which seeks to reassert its dominance over the former Soviet Empire and overthrow the existing order in Europe; and from a rising China, which seeks suzerainty in Asia. In all three areas, Trump has shown a limited grasp of the nature of the threat and has proposed strategies that would make America less secure.


As a Green Beret, CIA operations officer and senior national security official, I have served under six presidents—four Republicans and two Democrats. The last was Barack Obama, and for four years in the White House Situation Room, I saw Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s sound strategic judgment first-hand—on the Afghanistan surge, the campaign to dismantle and defeat core al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal region, the raid to kill Osama bin Laden, and on lethal support for the moderate Syrian opposition. Secretary Clinton has the temperament, national security experience and strategic judgment to be an outstanding commander in chief. Donald Trump does not. I’m with her.

Throughout the Cold War and during much of the post-9/11 period, Republicans have generally enjoyed an advantage with the electorate in the area of national security. Yet at a time when threats to America are increasing substantially, the Republicans have inexplicably chosen as their nominee someone with less national security experience than any candidate since the 1940s. Indeed, the gap in national security qualifications between the two major party candidates is greater than at any time since 1952, when Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower ran against Adlai Stevenson.

Here is why I came to this conclusion.

Trump talks tough about destroying the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, but his strategy for dealing with global jihadist groups is a poor one, focused almost exclusively on banning Muslims from traveling or immigrating to the United States. This would not only do little to diminish the threat posed by radical Islamists, it would feed the global jihadi narrative that we are at war with Islam. His alienation of Muslims at home and abroad, moreover, would make it extremely difficult to gain the intelligence and security cooperation we need to disrupt threats.

Trump’s strategy for dealing with global jihadist groups is a poor one, and he shows no understanding of what has actually worked well in counterterrorism strategy.

Our experience over two decades has shown unequivocally that the global terrorist threat cannot be contained. It must be defeated, and it cannot be defeated without strong, targeted and sustained offensive action. Trump rails frequently against the Iraq and Libya wars, but shows no understanding of what has actually worked well in counterterrorism strategy: intense and sustained Predator strikes, special operations raids and joint capture operations, and mobilizing tribal resistance. When he says that he would cede Syria to Assad, Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah and Russia—a policy that would further alienate and weaken our Sunni allies in the region and allow global jihadis a continued sanctuary from which to plan attacks against the American homeland—he shows no appreciation for the larger strategic context in which counterterrorism strategy must operate in order to be effective.

Trump’s bluster about ordering our national security professionals to waterboard detainees and “more” is deeply troubling on multiple levels. Suffice it to say, were such an order to be carried out, it would end up only weakening American power and placing our professionals in grave legal jeopardy.

Trump’s ideas for handling the great powers are equally unsound. His Russia strategy seems to be little more than appeasement. He is doing Vladimir Putin’s bidding by rejecting lethal support for Ukraine and questioning the U.S. commitment to NATO. He has yet to utter a peep about the Russian hybrid warfare threat—Putin’s use of proxy war and conventional military power to subvert and invade his neighbors. Trump is likewise silent on Russian covert political influence operations and cyberthreats.

His Russia strategy seems to be little more than appeasement. He is doing Vladimir Putin’s bidding.”

Trump’s China strategy seems to be about little more than trade. He shows no understanding of China’s development of military capabilities aimed at keeping the U.S. out of Asia. He likewise does not seem to understand the links between economic power and military power, or how his economic policies—adding an additional $10 trillion to the national debt, for example—would weaken American power. He talks about building up the American military but is silent on which capabilities will be needed to meet emerging threats.

Even more worrisome, Trump has so alienated Republican national security professionals that he will likely have great difficulty attracting top advisers to staff his administration were he to be elected. Presidents cannot make effective national security policy by themselves. The experience and judgment of their advisers is strongly correlated to their national security success.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term. But just as we needed an experienced and steady hand to guide us safely through the early years of the Cold War, we need an experienced and steady hand to guide us through the current challenges to American leadership and world order. Only one candidate in this presidential race can supply that.