A debate is raging within the Democratic Party about whether President Biden has the mental acuity to defeat former President Trump in the upcoming election and be President of the United States for another four years. Of course the same concerns should be raging within the Republican Party about their presumptive nominee former President Trump. By definition the nation’s Commander-in-Chief must have the physical and mental ability to make critical and timely national security decision 24/7.
Unfortunately not enough attention has been paid to the critical duties of the Commander-in-Chief. Our armed forces are on call around the world 24/7, and so is their Commander-in-Chief. It is a brutal, demanding full-time job that sometimes interferes with sleep in the middle of the night. No President gets to have an off night or delegate this enormous responsibility to the Defense Secretary, to the Joint Chiefs, to the White House Chief of Staff, or to the first spouse. Indeed, we must never go back to the days of Edith Wilson and Nancy Reagan when those first ladies became de facto Commanders-in-Chief.
In recent months, President Biden has authorized Ukraine to use US offensive weapons inside adjacent Russian territory. He has given a green light to the use of US assets in defense of Israel against Iranian missiles. Reject calling them two “proxy” US wars if you will. But the US has extended force against two major US adversaries on a knife’s edge. The importance of the sound judgment and clarity of the Commander-in-Chief in pressing future developments cannot be understated or ignored.
Normal bedtime and work hours may be irrelevant. What matters is the ability to absorb and assess complex information quickly and query US force commanders and national security advisors about data and options intelligently and wisely — regardless of the hour of the day or night and shape of the crisis. American voters shouldn’t take the word of administration officials or that of a campaign manager about a President’s or candidate’s ability, as the President or candidate himself should be able to stand before the public and media and demonstrate that he himself still has these skills with a degree of sharpness and wisdom we expect in a leader with immense global responsibilities.
Is Joe Biden up to the job? Is Donald Trump? How many times over the past year have we seen Donald Trump confused and stumbling in dealing with complex policy matters? He has proposed simplistic and alarming options in dealing with Russia, Ukraine, North Korea, and China, and frightened our European allies. Should we assess the teams that surround and guide both men in that decision? Or does that give too much of a pass to the shortcomings of either candidate?
Ideally the American people would apply uniform criteria in their consideration of whether to extend the Biden era into a second term or to grant the re-election of former President Trump.
Has Mr. Trump demonstrated that he has the competence, morals, and character to fill this demanding job? Anyone who worked to overturn the results of the last Presidential election in my view does not meet the requisite character test for Commander-in-Chief, nor does a convicted felon awaiting to be sentenced, nor does one found guilty of sexual assault in a civil legal matter. Former President Trump has lied repeatedly and failed the character and morals standard required for this post, and so far his political party has ignored this reality.
It looks like President Biden will not relinquish the controls. He seems supremely confident he’s the only Democrat who can win in November. Just maybe the usual White House banter “why crucify yourself on a small cross” doesn’t apply to this crisis. Maybe it’s past time for the President to take a serious pause and ask himself why is Adam Smith, the very able and steady ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, risking so much to urge me to step aside. Dare the President allow himself to let go and accept there really are others who can get the job done in November?
Aubrey Sarvis served as a senior Senate and House staffer, and Director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).
Rev. Ellsworth Tolliver says
Please also add the issue of how is it that a convicted felon can serve as Commander In Chief over a military that prohibits convicted felons from serving
Matthew W. Tobriner says
Mr. Sarvis raises interesting points about the capability of both presumptive presidential candidates to be the Commander in Chief of our military forces and systems. The willingness of the chain of command of the US military to follow presidential orders is obviously a central element of our national security. That chain of command must have confidence that the President is in possession of his faculties, is rationale in his or her analytical processes, and has arrived at military decisions based on a thorough vetting of alternatives. This process must be operating and available around the clock every day. If there is doubt, the door is open for potential non-compliance up and down the chain—leading to acts of omission and commission. The voting public has a lot to think about in the coming months.