This time we really do care who gets given the keys to the White House. American military hegemony - which most of us support (some just begrudgingly accept) - is such a key Free World strength in this struggle, that whoever controls its power, whoever uses it against the Islamist enemy in the years to come; that person must be a strong person, a wise judge and someone who knows who the enemy is (what it can do), how it operates and when to militarily take it out.

(Of course, it's the American people who decide, so what follows can be "thrown in the trash" for all it is worth coming from a European Editor - but I'll write it all the same; if for nothing else, to amuse my American friends.)

First, there’s religion. While George W Bush has (to date) admirably fulfilled his post 911 goal of protecting America, he has slipped up with some religious rhetoric along the way. Mentioning the word “crusade” did a lot of damage and his regular references to the “G” word still make the jihadis believe they are fighting a Holy War when they are nothing more than brainwashed criminals.

So, with religion a no-no, how does that affect the leading candidates? (By leading candidates here, we are talking about Clinton, Obama, Edwards, McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani and - just about - Thompson.  Let's forget the likes of Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson, Paul and Tancredo here, who seemed also-rans before they even started).

Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Thompson and Giuliani pass through the religion filter unscathed. Obama - who it is rumoured is/was a Muslim (nothing wrong with that - but that's not how the voters are seeing it) - just about squeaks through. The Mormon Romney and the Baptist Minister Huckabee fall at this first fence - too much for the enemy to grab hold of and conjure up the false image of a full-blown crusade.

Second there's National Security attitudes. All pass through as having a robust attitude towards national security except Edwards, who rejects the "global war on terror" as a mere "ideology used by the Bush administration to justify failed policies". That is immature politics and music to the enemy's ears.

Third there's Iraq. While Clinton is anti surge and talks sensibly about redeployment, Obama is talking of shifting responsibility onto the UN and a UN convention "to achieve national reconciliation". For this Obama loses half a life (it would be a whole life but he could just be boxing clever here). The three remaining Republicans are pro surge and have a credible Iraq strategy, showing no signs of weakness.

Fourth there's Iran. Here Clinton is smart yet again - favouring military strikes against Iran only with congressional approval. And here, Obama loses his remaining half a life - he says Iran's leaders would "change their behaviour if they were given incentives to do so", yet, in so doing, he utterly fails to understand the nature of Iran's leaders, their doomsday beliefs and supremacist ideologies. That's Hillary through on account of Obama's immaturity. Again, all the remaining Republican candidates talk about upping diplomacy, economic sanctions and, as a last resort, using military power to change Iran's ways - they all pass through to round five.

Fifth, there's immigration - the key to a sound homeland security strategy. On the Republican side we have a faller - McCain was co-sponsor of a bill which offered an amnesty to illegal immigrants as well as tougher border controls and believes undocumented workers already in the US should be put on path to citizenship (a sensible policy but one that gives all the wrong signs). Giuliani and Thompson want to waterproof the current mess - Giuliani even talking of tamper-proof ID cards and an electric fence. Clinton is already through, so it doesn't matter what she says at this stage, though her immigration talk sounds tougher than McCain's.

Finally, who's left? Well, it's Clinton on the Democrat ticket and Giuliani on the Republican ticket (Thompson just doesn't seem to be able to collect enough votes). So who'd make the better Commander in Chief in relation to the struggle against militant Islam?

To win the struggle America needs to choose someone who is prepared to take really tough decisions. Someone who can be a hardliner in this area while in others he or she can make out that life is normal and everything should just carry on as if there was no struggle at all. America needs a Reaganesque duck: smooth on top but thrashing around underwater and unsettling the enemy. Just as the Islamists fear the current cowboy, so they must fear the next incumbent because fear is their currency and they know nothing else.

Giuliani saw with his own eyes those poor men and women fall from the World Trade Centre. Sometimes in war revenge can be a useful motivation. A Presidency which switches from Father Bush to Husband Clinton to Son Bush to Wife Clinton does give the impression to outsiders of an oligarchy - by definition an abuse of freedoms.

President Giuliani - the Italian FDR - perhaps he can tidy up the planet like he tidied up Times Square?

---

Bookmark with: