The state of the U.S. economy and jobs are the overwhelming issues that will determine the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. Still, in a close race, national security issues could play the decisive role.

Given the inherent advantages President Barack Obama has on national security as an incumbent president and the likelihood that Republicans will nominate a candidate better suited to challenge Obama on domestic issues, Mr. Obama will have an advantage. Insufficient attention by the Republican nominee to national security issues could be a politically fatal mistake.

According to a May 22, 2011, Rasmussen Reports poll, only eight percent of Americans say that national security issues are their top voting issue. Seventy-six percent of likely U.S. voters see the economy as a very important issue in terms of how they vote. There are many important national security issues for Americans to worry about, but this time around domestic economic issues have a more direct and immediate impact on most Americans’ lives.

Normally, when a country is at war it dominates the national security debate and the presidential campaign. But in 2012, Afghanistan and Iraq aren’t likely to dominate them. Americans are no longer plagued by daily images of car bombs and dead Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan; and President Obama has in place plans for withdrawing U.S. forces. Both wars have become background noise in media coverage that concentrates more on domestic political and other issues.

Americans are concerned about foreign policy issues in the news; and President Obama’s actions and inactions on many of them raise questions about his leadership. But these issues are complex, nuanced, and, for the moment, overshadowed by our domestic problems; and they are full of traps for a Republican nominee not well versed in them.

How should the United States react to upheaval in the Arab world? President Obama’s approach to events in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Yemen has been uneven and confusing.

How do we achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians? The President’s statement that Israel’s 1967 borders “with some land swaps” should be the basis for and Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement put him at odds with the overwhelming majority of Americans and angered Israel.

How do we prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? Mr. Obama appears to have no plan.

How do we deal with a rising China, and why is the Obama administration holding up U.S. arms sales to Taiwan?

Moreover, any advantage Republicans generally have had on national security has been largely countered by President Barack Obama’s George W. Bush-like counterterrorism policies and his successful takedown of Osama bin Laden. Republican candidates for president this time around won’t have that as a backstop in the minds of undecided voters.

According to a May 30, 2011, CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey President Obama’s "approval rating on every domestic issue listed in the poll is well below 50 and on most of them - including the economy, health care, taxes, and the budget deficit - his rating has remained flat or dropped since the start of the year." Majorities of Americans, however, give President Obama high marks on “foreign or security” issues.

The current crop of declared and prospective Republican presidential candidates includes people with national security credentials. Most have more than Barack Obama had when he ran for President in 2008. Newt Gingrich was former Speaker of the House. Jon Huntsman, Jr., was President Obama’s ambassador to China. Michelle Bachmann serves on the House Intelligence Committee. Ron Paul serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. John Bolton served in the Department of State and as the Ambassador to the United Nations. How likely are any of them, however, to win the Republican nomination?

Who Republicans nominate in 2012 is anyone’s guess at this point, but Republicans want a nominee they believe will turn the U.S. economy around, bring down unemployment and pursue policies that will promote economic growth. Former governors like Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or Sarah Palin are better prepared to challenge President Obama on domestic issues—taxes, debt, spending, healthcare, and entitlements—than on national security. Whoever the nominee is, he or she won’t likely be strong on national security.

Critical Independent voters won’t expect the Republican nominee to have same access to intelligence information or experience on national security as a sitting president. What they will expect is that he or she has a strong foreign policy/national security team to back them up. In 2000, George W. Bush had his “Vulcans.” They provided him excellent advice and showed voters what kind of people he would appoint to top national security positions and what kind of policies he would pursue. They served as effective surrogates for Bush during the campaign.

It only takes one slip up like President Gerald Ford’s "There is no Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe"-gaffe, however, to do a candidate in.

The pro-Obama mainstream media and the Obama campaign will do its best to expose Republican candidates’ and the eventual Republican nominee’s lack of national security experience. Republicans may wish to keep the focus on Mr. Obama’s domestic policies, but the Obama campaign and its surrogates will do it’s best to change the subject. Republicans will over use “common sense” and Democrats will overuse “we got bin Laden.”

It’s difficult to know precisely what national security issue might top the newscasts in the months before the election or whether the U.S. economy will be getting better or worse. Whatever the situation, there is one thing we know for certain. Foreign policy and national security will be the focus of attention for the 40 to 50 million Americans who tune in to the one of three presidential debates that always concentrates on national security.

Taking a page from President Obama’s own playbook during the 2008 campaign, the Republican nominee doesn’t have to dazzle them with his or her brilliance on national security. It’s only necessary to look presidential and not say something stupid. Doing that on national security, however, won’t be an easy task. It will require a lot of homework, an excellent team of advisors, and the right candidate.