Election Day is only about two weeks away. And questions about Kamala Harris’s candidacy for president remain. However, her recent interview with Fox News has not instilled confidence in many Americans. Her understanding of global issues affecting this country is called into question.
Harris’s National Security Oversights
Vice President Kamala Harris’ recent interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier sparked criticism for her apparent lack of focus on critical national security threats. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine and China’s increasing assertiveness on the global stage were conspicuously absent from her discussion. Many people have questioned Harris’ understanding of current geopolitical challenges, as well as her willingness to potentially take on the role of Commander-in-Chief.
The interview uncovered a troubling trend in Harris’s approach to national security. While she mentioned Iran as a threat, she failed to address what many see as the most pressing issue: strategic competition with China. Her remarks made no mention of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) aggressive military posture, as demonstrated by exercises such as Joint Sword 2024B, which simulated an encirclement of Taiwan.
Kamala is so out of touch with reality, she's actually bragging about being on Fox last night – which was one of the most catastrophic interviews that will go down in history. pic.twitter.com/cYaMWCuBhg
— Sara Rose 🇺🇸🌹 (@saras76) October 17, 2024
China’s Growing Threat and U.S. Response
China’s military advances and assertive actions in the Indo-Pacific region pose a serious threat to American interests. The Chinese Coast Guard’s participation in military exercises demonstrates a comprehensive approach to Taiwan control. Critics claim that the Biden-Harris administration has failed to adequately address these developments, citing decisions such as the US Navy’s downsizing as potentially jeopardizing America’s ability to counter Chinese aggression.
According to Ricardo Zúniga, a former State Department official, “She felt — and I think she was right — that what she could do was basically help lead the effort to draw in investment, using the confidence that a relationship with the White House would give to investors.”
While Harris has prioritized economic strategies to address global issues, such as increasing private investment in Central America’s Northern Triangle, some argue that this approach falls short of addressing immediate national security concerns. Her long-term migration strategy has resulted in over $5.2 billion in investment promises, but critics argue that these efforts fall short in the face of more pressing security threats.
This about sums up Her whole Campaign and what Americans responses are every single day after she speaks. Thank you Bret Baier for finally saying it pic.twitter.com/cslfGkDpiT
— Chris Boutell (@CBoutell) October 17, 2024
Afghanistan Withdrawal and Its Aftermath
The third anniversary of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan has reignited debates about the Biden-Harris administration’s foreign policy decisions. Harris’s reported involvement in the decision to evacuate Afghanistan, despite the Taliban’s violation of the previous administration’s withdrawal agreement, has come under scrutiny.
The absence of Harris and President Biden from the memorial service for the 13 service members killed in Kabul has been noted, with families requesting that former President Trump lay a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery instead. This incident has fueled more criticism of the administration’s handling of national security issues, as well as its commitment to honoring those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
Questioning Harris’s Presidential Readiness
As speculation about the 2024 presidential election heats up, Harris’ capabilities as a potential commander-in-chief are being scrutinized. Critics argue that her perceived lack of strategic understanding, as well as her failure to adequately address key national security threats, raise serious concerns about her presidential readiness.
While Harris has made strong statements about defending American interests, her critics argue that her actions and public statements have not been consistent with these promises.
The ongoing debates over her role in the administration’s foreign policy decisions, as well as her apparent failure to address critical global threats, fuel skepticism about her ability to lead on the international stage.
Sources:
