By John Ubaldi, “Ubaldi Reports”

Continuing John Ubaldi’s look at the 2020 Democratic candidates, we examine Minnesota’s Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar.

The U.S. decision to remove American military personnel from Syria has the national security establishment vocally speaking out about this ill-advised decision, but how would the next president deal with the complex challenges in the Middle East?

As we enter the 2020 presidential election, little attention has been paid to national security, what is not known is how would each of the Democratic candidates seeking the presidency deal with national security, what is there vision for U.S. foreign policy?

With the presidential election campaign moving forward, we have begun a series of articles assessing the credentials and polices of the Democratic candidates. This week we will examine the national security vision of Minnesota Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar.

Currently, Klobuchar is a U.S. Senator from Minnesota and currently sits on the Senate committee on Judiciary, Commerce, Science and Transportation, Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and finally the Committee on Rules and Administration.

Prior to being elected to the Senate in 2006, Klobuchar served as District Attorney for Hennepin Country, Minnesota’s largest county.

Like all the Democratic candidates running for president believe firmly that climate change is an existential threat to the national security of the United States, and Klobuchar is no different.

Klobuchar would Re-Enter Paris Climate Change Agreement

On her presidential campaign website she pledges that in the first few days of her administration she would have the United States re-enter the Paris International Climate Change Agreement and bring back the clean power rules and gas mileage rules that were instituted during the Obama administration.  Incidentally Klobuchar was also a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal.

Opponents would ask Klobuchar how she would deal with China which is a signatory to the Paris Climate Accord but has failed to limit its greenhouse gas admissions, all the while increasing its coal-fired plants and exporting them to other countries.  How would she deal with China on this issue?

Recently, the national security establishment on both sides of the political spectrum has criticized the decision by President Trump to withdraw U.S. military forces from Syria.  Senator Amy Klobuchar has also come out against this ill-conceived policy by the president.

Klobuchar has stated that “I opposed the President’s sudden announcement of the Administration’s plans to quickly withdraw our troops from Syria, which was contrary to the advice of our senior national security officials.”

Turmoil in the Middle East

On Klobuchar’s presidential campaign website she outlines policies she would enact if she became the president which would include remaining vigilant against terrorism, advancing peace and security in the Middle East, which also includes continuing to provide vital assistance to Afghanistan and Iraq, combating Iran’s destabilizing activities inside Syria, and finally preventing the threat of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

One of the areas Klobuchar parts ways with the Trump Administration is with regard to the Iran Nuclear agreement.  One in which she stated that, “After extensive review, I reached the conclusion that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – the agreement reached between Iran and the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China – was our best available option to put the brakes on Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, and I opposed the Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement. I supported the agreement for four key reasons. First, the agreement curbs Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon.”

Those who oppose Klobuchar’s foreign policy would cite the contradictory aspects of her polices especially as it relates to the Iran nuclear deal.

Klobuchar’s Stance on Terrorism

Opponents would mention that Klobuchar wants to be vigilant against terrorism, and curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but at the same time would recommit the U.S. to the Iran nuclear agreement.

Those critical of the Iran nuclear deal often mention with its passage gave Tehran billions of dollars, lifted crippling economic sanctions and gave the regime much needed revenue which was used to destabilize the Middle East region especially in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.  Would Klobuchar lift the crippling sanctions on Iran imposed by the Trump administration, Iran has publically stated they would not negotiate with the U.S. until all sanctions are lifted.

How would a Klobuchar administration prevent Iran from destabilizing the region if sanctions were lifted?

The Way Forward in Syria?

President Trump has received universal condemnation over withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Syria, thus allowing Turkey to unleash its invasion of Northern Syria thereby attacking Syrian Kurdish forces that were aligned with the United States in its fight against ISIS.

Klobuchar was one of those vocal critics of the Trump’s Syrian policy, the question that hasn’t been asked is what is our strategy in Syria, beyond defeating ISIS?  Is the U.S. policy still the removal of the Assad regime, what is our strategy with regard toward Russia, Turkey, the Kurd’s and Iran?  What about Iraq? National security and politicians on both sides of the political spectrum have failed to address these complex issues!

One of the most contentious issues facing the United States is how to deal with Russia; Klobuchar has spoken out on how the U.S. needs to get tougher on Moscow and work with our allies, but has been vague on how she would be different from the Trump administration.

The Trump administration has placed far tougher sanctions on Russia then the Obama administration, the question how would Klobuchar be different, and what would her polices be in relationship to Europe, especially Germany with regard to Ukraine, and Moscow?

Overhauling National Defense

One of the challenges all presidents have to deal with is how to shape and articulate a national security vision as it relates to the Department of Defense.

Klobuchar stated that “We also need to identify and eliminate wasteful spending and unnecessary programs to ensure fiscal responsibility and accountability in our defense budget, while fully providing our service members with the tools and training they need to carry out their duties. Our military forces should be as cost-effective as possible, and that means investing in the National Guard with its dual federal and state missions.”

All candidates for president mention ending wasteful military programs, but have been vague on which programs and weapons systems would she eliminate? What direction would she take the U.S. armed forces in the 21st century?  If history is any guide the decision made by the occupant of the White House often changes once they become president and those decisions have had devastating results as was the case with the downsizing of the military after World War II that left America unprepared for its involvement in the Korean War.

Maybe the upcoming November 20th debate will give clarity to national security where the previous debates left us wanting more.