American national security and the security of many of our allies depend upon the ability of the U.S. to deter aggression. Deterrence depends upon having robust military capabilities. These are the conventional and nuclear might of America’s military. Deterrence is also dependent upon political considerations like America’s credibility and willpower to meet aggression against American soil should deterrence fail or against the territory of our allies with whom the U.S. has an extended deterrent commitment, like Australia, Japan, and our NATO allies. Hence, deterrence is about military capabilities—they must be strong—but also political considerations. The U.S. must be credible and evince the willpower to follow through on the explicit and implicit threats to use military force, including nuclear weapons, to deter formidable conventional and nuclear powers like the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

U.S. presidents should be symbols of strength, stability, and power, speaking firmly and quietly to convey credible threats that will be executed if U.S. enemies aggress, while carrying a big stick, overwhelming U.S. military might. As Air Force General Curtis LeMay said if the Soviet Union aggressed, it would be “a smoking, irradiating ruin at the end of two hours.” This was a credible threat when the U.S. had both the capabilities and demonstrated willpower to accomplish this during the Cold War.

Viewed through the perspective of international politics, the mental incapacity of President Biden is deeply troubling because it has very clearly weakened U.S. deterrence—just ask the people of Afghanistan, Ukraine, or Israel. The president’s illness projects weakness, not strength, vacillation, not determination, and senescence rather than a crystalline strategic focus. He is not a voice of stability and strength but is an incarnation of confusion and uncertainty, compelling the world to ask who is in charge of the United States.