Clinton and Trump should start naming their foreign policy picks

Now that the Trump-Pence and Clinton-Kaine tickets have been rolled out, I think it’s safe to say The Donald and Hillary passed their first big tests as presidential nominees. They both picked solid running mates.

If you believe, as I do, that national security is going to become the most important issue of the fall campaign, then Trump and Clinton need to start thinking about publicly naming others to their teams (such as possible secretaries of Defense, State or National Security Advisers).

{mosads}Yes, it would be nice if they gave us clues as to whom each would pick as their Treasury secretary, for example, but that can wait.

Being a 60-something baby boomer, I have witnessed the changing priorities of presidents since the 1960s. The Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam War, the wars in the Middle East and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are among the many problems presidents from John Kennedy to Barack Obama have had to face in my lifetime.

Now, with the advent of the lone-wolf syndrome, where individuals inspired by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) carry out heinous mass killings of innocents, no one seems safe any longer. Just ask the good people of Paris; Brussels; Nice, France or Munich.

I realize terrible shootings in San Bernardino, California and Orlando, Florida have taken place but, luckily, the same kind of hotel, airport or shopping mall bombings haven’t exploded on our shores … yet. No one wants to admit it, but it would be foolish to think something like what we’ve been witnessing lately in Europe won’t happen here.

This is why the Trump and Clinton national security picks are so important. That said, what are the characteristics needed in a Defense secretary today? Are they the same as during the Cold War or are they different now? Ditto for secretary of State or a National Security Adviser.

Here’s what former Defense Secretary William Perry, who served under President Clinton in the ’90s, told me about characteristics needed of a Defense secretary:

“Some knowledge and experience in the national security field; prior military service would be useful, but not necessary; some real experience in management (he or she will be running a company with a $500 billion annual budget and more than 3 million people); an unflappable personality, and, most all, the character to stand up for what he or she believes, even if it means stepping down from the job.”

With these thoughts in mind, I asked Perry, who is the author of “My Journey at the Nuclear Brink,” if he had any specific recommendations in mind for his old job:

“I’ve worked with [Defense Secretary] Ash Carter and [Under Secretary of Defense for Policy] Michèle Flournoy for many years. I think either one would be a good fit for Hillary. As for Trump, I don’t know what to say. His statements on national security to this point have been so off the wall, I think the primary characteristic needed of his Defense [s]ecretary is the guts to stand his ground and tell the new president when he is wrong. I don’t have a name to suggest. In fact several names would be needed because if the new [s]ecretary follows my advice, he or she may have a short tenure.”

The next president is going to face challenges we haven’t even considered yet. Some most likely will be economic. Others might be environmental. No matter what they are, I’m afraid they all will pale compared to a rising tide of violence.

The sooner Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton reveal the names of their secretaries of Defense or State, the sooner voters will be able to decide which candidate is best qualified to lead America into the future.

Freidenrich writes from Laguna Beach, Calif. His letters and commentaries have run in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The Christian Science Monitor, The Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register and many other newspapers. He can be reached on Twitter @freidomreport.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.