Orlando shooting highlights two-front war facing Trump and Clinton

The worst mass shooting in U.S. history is already reverberating throughout the policy community as local and national policymakers dissect another deadly massacre, which left approximately 50 people dead and more than 50 wounded. This latest shooting will undoubtedly raise the stakes in the race for the White House, as the war of words between the presumptive nominees has already reached DEFCON 1.

{mosads}With the attacks in Paris, Belgium and San Bernardino, California still seared in the hearts and minds of the international community, the carnage of Orlando demands collective action to accompany the strong words of condemnation from national leaders. This latest malady on the heels of a long string of such shootings comes less than a month before the national nominating conventions and only four months before the U.S. electorate heads to the polls to pick a new commander in chief. A race that was expected to feature an endless stream of insults should now be waged on a more stable policy footing characterized by (hopefully) new ideas and policy prescriptions to secure the homeland and root out global terror networks.

Donald Trump, the GOP’s presumptive nominee, has long called for erecting a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. In the aftermath of the deadly shooting in San Bernardino that left 16 dead (including the two shooters), his proposed ban on all Muslims entering the United States has divided many. Yet, in the wake of the attack in Orlando, Florida, the reality television star has only doubled down on his controversial ideas.

During a speech in Manchester, New Hampshire following the tragic events in Orlando, the real estate billionaire reiterated his support for the Second Amendment, suggesting that law-abiding citizens’ access to guns is a possible deterrent to lone-wolf attacks. Moreover, as Trump’s caustic positions morph from laudatory crowds to cautionary moderate and independent audiences, they (possibly) could gain traction with a fragile and scarred American public seeking security and safety against radical jihadists whose sole mission is the destruction of the United States. However, even as Trump’s ideas garner increasing support with the mogul’s conservative base, they will continue to be lambasted by the diplomatic community which sees these ideas placing the U.S. at odds with longstanding allies integral to prosecuting global war on terror.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, too — the presumptive Democratic nominee — is confronting a seismic challenge in the wake of Orlando that could derail her historic candidacy. While President Obama continues to enjoy high approval ratings, his handling of foreign policy continues to be a noticeable weakness of his administration. A Pew poll shows that more disapprove than approve of Obama on foreign policy, immigration and Iran. Fifty-three percent disapprove of his handling on foreign policy, with similar disapproval numbers on terrorism (51 percent) and immigration policy (55 percent).

The Orlando terror attack — by a U.S.-born Muslim — could lead to higher disapproval ratings for the president and Clinton as the candidate is tied to Obama at every turn by Trump and those in the GOP camp. To head off this challenge, Clinton gave a speech in Cleveland after the Orlando massacre at which she not only called for a ban on assault weapons but was willing to reference “radical Islam,” which is in direct contrast to her former boss.

Newtown, Connecticut; Fort Hood, Texas; Aurora, Colorado; the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard; and Charleston, South Carolina, among so many other mass shootings, are forever seared in the national psyche. Yet, the Orlando shooting — combined with the San Bernardino massacre — dramatically shifts the political landscape and alters the battlefield in the global war on terror. The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has penetrated the homeland and all of America is the target. Trump and Clinton must now recalibrate their strategies to win over the American voter while also promulgating a plan to defeat terror networks and the fomenting chaos and instability throughout the Middle East that appears to have reached America’s shore. Former President George W. Bush used to say that we have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here. That is now history. The fight is here now.

Further, the two-front war facing both presidential candidates is real. A war of policy at home and ideology abroad will determine not only the outcome of the race for the White House, but the fate of the longstanding war radical jihadists are waging against the West.

Incessant name-calling, the offensive barbs and the comical caricatures that have been the hallmarks of this campaign season must now give way to serious engagement, thoughtful analysis, and above all, sound judgment. Not only do the victims of Orlando and San Bernardino deserve better, but an entire nation is in the cross hairs and like the superhero movies in theaters across the nation, America is looking for a crusader to thwart the next attack.

Ham is a national security and political analyst who worked for the U.S. Senate on foreign relations and armed services policy. He chairs the Fragile State Strategy Group in Washington and is coauthor of “S.O.S.: A U.S. Strategy of Statebuilding.” Follow him @EKH2016.