The world is getting more dangerous, seemingly by the day. It would behoove the United States to stand ready. But for that to happen, candidates for the highest offices in the land need to begin addressing this as a priority. A newly released report by the National Defense Strategy Commission, which was created by Congress to assess the nation’s defense strategy, begins with this warning: “The United States confronts the most serious and the most challenging threats since the end of World War II. The United States could in short order be drawn into a war across multiple theaters with peer and near-peer adversaries, and it could lose.”

That ominous concern is being repeated by various other experts. In an essay published by Foreign Affairs in April, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, senior fellow and director of the Transatlantic Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, and Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security, put it this way: “Too many Western observers have been quick to dismiss the implications of coordination among China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.” These nations have their differences with one another, “yet their shared aim of weakening the United States and its leadership role provides a strong adhesive.”

In the midst of all this, another source of tension has emerged. Vietnam is busy building islands to challenge China’s claims in the South China Sea, according to The Washington Post. This may not affect the United States directly, but apple carts, once overturned, can spill in many directions.

The problem is the United States has a military designed to fight only one war at a time effectively. It ought to instead adopt a strategy allowing it to confront multiple conflicts. Mackenzie Eaglen, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, wrote recently, “A consensus is building in Washington that a three-theater force is necessary.”

This was, she reminds readers, a strategy championed by the late Arizona Sen. John McCain. It’s also the current opinion of Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Mass., who also acknowledges this would require considerably more military spending. We would add that it would require more effective recruitment of personnel, as well.

With global tensions rising, and with U.S. allies and U.S. resources already involved in hot conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, the question of military readiness ought to be front and center in this year’s presidential race.

With that in mind, we offer two factors to consider. The first is that any talk of reducing America’s commitment to NATO could send a signal to the nation’s enemies that the alliance’s commitment to mutual defense is waning or uncertain. That might embolden certain belligerent leaders to take action.

As Defense News and Military Times editorial fellow Cristina Stassis wrote recently, the United States cannot ignore its strong trade ties with Europe, involving 40% of global trade. “America’s military strength is a key deterrent,” she wrote, and America’s nuclear arsenal is “a key part of how NATO deters adversaries.”

The second factor concerns the U.S. economy. The national debt recently topped $35 trillion, and it continues to grow at an alarming rate. The annual budget deficit is approaching $2 trillion. Interest alone on debt is roughly equivalent to the nation’s yearly military budget. The more entangled the nation is with debt, the harder it is to react to emergencies such as recession and war. In March, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution that called the national debt “a threat to the national security of the United States.”

It went further, saying the Senate “realizes that deficits are unsustainable, irresponsible, and dangerous,” and that it “commits to restoring regular order in the appropriations process” and to “preventing the looming fiscal crisis faced by the United States.” This came more than a decade after former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen called the debt “the most significant threat to our national security.” But resolutions do nothing more than state a position or make a declaration.

With the world growing ever more dangerous, inaction and vacillation are inexcusable. Americans need to hold their candidates accountable for how they intend to continue America’s role as a bulwark for freedom.

On the third anniversary of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Biden administration has yet to fire any leadership personnel for their role in the botched operation; instead, the administration has maintained that the decision to pull out was the right move.

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 was seen by many as a chaotic and abrupt operation that led to the deaths of several U.S. troops. But the Biden administration has largely refused to admit blame in the matter, and no leadership involved has been dismissed or resigned over the operation, according to a review of multiple records.

The Biden administration’s goal was to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September 2021, but a failure of planning and preparation by leadership in Washington created a disordered situation for troops on the ground in Afghanistan, resulting in a disordered evacuation. There was also a miscalculation among military leaders who believed that the Taliban would not seize control of the country as quickly as the extremist group did after U.S. forces withdrew.

The Department of Defense, headed by Secretary Lloyd Austin, was intimately involved prior to and during the withdrawal, guiding U.S. military operations on the ground in Afghanistan and providing resources and intelligence for the operation. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCOS) Chairman retired Gen. Mark Milley — at the time the highest ranking member of the military — was also involved in coordinating strategy and operations for the withdrawal.

Both Austin and Milley attended planning sessions for the withdrawal, retired Gen. Austin Scott Miller, the top U.S. general in Afghanistan at the time, told lawmakers during a closed-door hearing in April, according to The Washington Post. Miller had been privately warning the administration ahead of the withdrawal that Afghanistan’s stability would get “very bad, very fast” after U.S. forces departed.

Miller stepped down from his role in July 2023, after serving as the most senior U.S. officer in Afghanistan. Neither Austin nor Milley were removed from their roles over the withdrawal, though Milley testified in 2023 that he had advised the administration to keep troops in Afghanistan, arguing that the region would quickly collapse if the U.S. withdrew on the set timeline, according to The New York Times. Milley’s term as JCOS chair ended in September 2023.

For his part, Austin testified in 2023 that he supported Biden’s decision to evacuate U.S. troops in 2021 and said he didn’t “have any regrets” about the operation. Austin remains the current Secretary of Defense under Biden.

Similar to the Department of Defense, the State Department, led by Secretary Antony Blinken and tasked with overseeing U.S. foreign affairs, was also involved in planning and helping execute the Afghanistan withdrawal, especially regarding evacuating U.S. citizens present in the country. Thousands of Americans were initially stranded in Afghanistan; most of them were evacuated in the weeks and months following.

A State Department 2023 after-action report found that the withdrawal operation “was hindered by the fact that it was unclear who in the Department had the lead.” The report also noted that there was an “insufficient senior-level consideration of worst-case scenarios.”

There have been multiple credible reports that the State Department on various occasions failed to properly vet or track millions in aid to Afghanistan following the U.S. withdrawal in 2021, running the risk it could end up in the hands of the Taliban or other extremist groups.

The U.S. left over $7 billion worth of military equipment in Afghanistan. The Taliban, an Islamic extremist group ruling over Afghanistan, held a demonstration on Wednesday with American military equipment and vehicles left at a former U.S. base in the country.

Biden has not dismissed Blinken, and Blinken has not resigned from his role as Secretary of State. Nor has Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, who would have had his ear and offered him advice prior to and during the withdrawal.

A Biden administration 2023 report assigned most blame on the former Trump administration for the withdrawal, given that Trump signed an agreement with the Taliban in 2020 to withdraw U.S. forces by 2021. After taking office in 2021, Biden tried to abide by the agreement and withdraw forces by September of that year, according to the report.

Trump and his team argue that had he been president at the time, the withdrawal would have been executed in a safe and secure manner, and blamed the Biden administration for “trying to gaslight the American people for their disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan that directly led to American deaths and emboldened the terrorists.”

Biden has defended his choice to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan when he did. He falsely claimed during a debate against Trump in June that he was “the only president this decade that doesn’t have any troops dying anywhere in the world.”

Following the withdrawal, Biden also reportedly told his top aides, including Sullivan, that he supported them and their decisions regarding the operation, according to Axios.

The Pentagon and State Department did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.