Out on the campaign trail, Senators Clinton and Obama have made it abundantly clear that their objective is to usher in "change" and government "solutions" into every nook and cranny of our lives. If elected president, either one would attempt to fashion a nanny state the likes of which we have never experienced in our history.

This state would be crafted by a tax hike on higher income taxpayers, and the effect would be a reduction in our freedoms. Perhaps only Congress and the American people could modify their socialism.

But where do these contenders stand on national security and foreign affairs? How would either one handle China and Russia, both of which are flexing their muscles? Both candidates oppose free trade and hope to erect protective barriers to trade. That protectionism would have an adverse impact on American exports, as well as on imports coming in from other regions. These senators rail against outsourcing of American jobs, but ignore the fact that millions of jobs have been insourced to America during the past 15-20 years.

Both candidates have assailed the FISA laws, the Patriot Act, and other assets used to disrupt terror plots and prevent attacks. Moreover, they have announced that they would shut down Gitmo soon after taking office and transfer the "detainees" elsewhere. Both senators have shown through speeches and votes that they would micromanage our defense and intelligence institutions.

One wonders how they would pursue and dismantle terror organizations and sanction states that support terror. Do they hope to deter radical Islamism through blind luck, or through an appeasement agenda? Similar to many liberals, Clinton and Obama view counterterrorism primarily as a law enforcement function, rather than a proactive strategy. Unfortunately, fanatic terrorists continue to plan and preemptively strike at every opportunity. Therefore, preventive and preemptive measures must be utilized to thwart diabolical terror plans and reduce attacks by Islamist extremists.

Although western societies offer captured terrorists some form of due process, terrorists don't operate under civilized laws and rules. However, in a fast paced world where threats can materialize quickly, effective leaders can't be paralyzed by due process, or world opinion. In this real world we live in, the only rules our implacable foes use are their own rules of chaos, deception, terror, and treachery. How many global terror assaults will it take for these presidential contenders to awaken out of their slumber and accept reality?

Amazingly, both candidates think that they can sit down with foreign dictators after certain pre-conditions are met. However, how many tyrants make a habit of compromising and meeting conditions? They wouldn't stay in power very long if they gave in to external demands. Moreover, why would Clinton, or Obama want to negotiate with autocrats that want to annihilate Israel and other democratic nations? It sounds like the same naive myopia displayed by Jimmy Carter and John Kerry all over again.

Both candidates promise to implement an orderly withdrawal of American troops out of Iraq next year, regardless of conditions and progress. That arbitrary exit strategy would likely thrill Iran and assorted terrorist groups that could further destabilize the region. However, other countries in the region would be alarmed if the coalition withdrew prematurely.

Clinton, or Obama would redeploy most of these military personnel over to the war on terror. Once again, they view the small picture, and fail to absorb the fact that Operation Iraqi Freedom is part and parcel of the war on terror. Under Saddam, the Baathist state was a rogue regime that terrorized Iraqis and neighboring states.

However, Iraq is currently undergoing a difficult transition from totalitarian rule to pluralist democracy. It will take many years to institutionalize democracy and the rule of law as Iraqis learn how to protect their sovereignty. It doesn't make sense to pull the rug out from under the courageous Iraqis just when they are generating metrics of success in the spheres of governance, reconstruction, and security.

A Clinton, or Obama in the Oval Office could weaken our posture in the world through semi-isolationism, which could make the Middle East a more dangerous place. If spectacular terrorist attacks escalated during the tenure of either, they couldn't point the finger at George W. Bush, because he will be out of office.