WASHINGTON – The next president will face a series of difficult national security issues.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be leftovers from the Bush administration. On Capitol Hill last week, Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker faced a skeptical audience of lawmakers frustrated by the lack of an end date in Iraq.

But military and homeland security experts see several other challenges.

Those issues include how to fight terrorism without creating more terrorists, the consequences of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in Iran and Pakistan, nonproliferation and global climate change. Middle East peace remains elusive and perhaps more difficult than ever, experts said.

There also are difficult relations with Russia, China, North Korea and Venezuela; mass killings in Darfur; and AIDS and poverty in Africa.

With few easy solutions, none of the candidates are talking straight with the American public about many of the decisions that the next president will face, particularly when it comes to Iraq, national security experts said.

The candidates are either not addressing the problems or typically engaging in political rhetoric that appeals to their supporters but doesn’t address the realities of the challenges, some national security experts said.

“The ship of state is like a galleon,” said John Hulsman, scholar in residence at the German Council on Foreign Relations, a foreign policy think tank. “If you start pulling on the rudder now, in about four miles it will start to turn.”

Republican John McCain, who supports keeping troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future, makes comparisons to postwar Germany and Korea that ignore history, Hulsman said. And Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama “veer into sloganeering” as they promise an eager public that they will bring the troops home, Hulsman said.

“People looking for a lightning change from the Bush years are going to be very disappointed,” Hulsman said.

Within 60 days of taking office, Obama promises to remove one to two brigades a month from Iraq, a process that would be completed in 2009 if conditions remain good.

“I don’t remember the last time anything went perfect in Iraq,” Hulsman said.

“I don’t know anybody working the Iraq problem on the ground who believes we can get out in 2009,” agreed Michael O’Hanlon, a national security policy expert who specializes in Iraq, North Korea and homeland security at the Brookings Institution.

“That’s tantamount to giving up … and is not consistent with any kind of a reasonable outcome. … It’s just too fast,” he said.

Further complicating plans for a U.S. pullout in 2009 is that it will be an election year in Iraq. The elections will likely lead to more violence and cause Iraqi politicians to play to their religious and ethnic bases, which will lead to further divisions, O’Hanlon said.

If McCain’s strategy is to stay the course and Obama is pushing for a quick pullout, Clinton “is trying to split the difference” by calling for a phased withdrawal much like Obama but with more caveats, Hulsman said.

Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who supports the New York senator’s presidential bid, said Clinton “has shown a very sophisticated understanding of all the aspects of the withdrawal in a very responsible way and that’s different from Senator McCain, who has basically said we have to stay there.”

Clinton has said she would order military and national security leaders to craft a withdrawal plan within 60 days. That’s similar to Obama’s proposal to withdraw one to two brigades a month and leave a strike force to deal with al-Qaida or other threats. But she hasn’t set an end date.

“Her policies are very clear in terms of wanting to end the war in Iraq in a responsible way, understanding that we need a surge of diplomacy and understanding the difficulties of getting out (and the need for greater) regional diplomacy,” Albright said.

Clinton hasn’t set a specific exit date because “she knows how hard it is to get out,” Albright said.

If the candidates are not in agreement on Iraq, there is a greater consensus on Afghanistan and the need for more troops, a new strategy and a greater commitment from NATO allies.

When it comes to Iran, the candidates sound a lot alike, but they differ in how they would confront the Islamic republic over its nuclear program.

While none of the candidates has taken force off the table as an option, analysts such as Hulsman think Obama would be the least likely to use force if Iran developed or obtained a nuclear weapon.

McCain would be the first to use force, Hulsman said.

McCain talks “about multilateral diplomacy … but if push comes to shove I think he bombs,” Hulsman said.

Clinton would be more likely than Obama to take military action, Hulsman said. She would be the most serious of the three candidates about pursuing multilateral diplomacy, Hulsman said.

If Iraq dominates the 2008 campaign and the candidates’ stump speeches, mostly left unsaid is how they would protect Americans at home, said Clark Kent Ervin, director of the homeland security program at the Aspen Institute, a nonpartisan organization based in Washington, D.C.

Five years after the start of the Iraq war and more than six years after the 9/11 attacks, “We have not used the time to shore up remaining domestic vulnerabilities,” said Ervin, the Department of Homeland Security’s first inspector general.

“We’re still far more vulnerable to an attack on aviation, through our seaports, through our land borders. We haven’t centralized intelligence,” he said.

Emergency preparations are better than they were after Hurricane Katrina, but Ervin said they are “not adequate for a major disaster.”

Ervin, a Bush appointee, thinks the Democratic candidates would be more likely to tackle some of the problems, because they are more supportive of increased spending and increased regulation of industry that has opposed heightened government oversight.

Obama, for example, has supported legislation for increased regulation and tougher security at chemical plants nationwide and has some of the more comprehensive homeland security plans.

Yet none of them has made homeland security a priority.

“A stump speech tells you what a candidate thinks is most important,” Ervin said, adding that the only time the issue gets mentioned is during discussions about Iraq.

“This is a major, major issue, and they are only focusing on half of the coin,” he said.

PH END LIEBERMAN

(Brett Lieberman can be contacted at brett.lieberman(at)newhouse.com.)

2008-04-14-CAMPAIGN-SECURITY

AP-NY-04-14-08 1349EDT