War and the presidency
Trump blasted for 'war imagery' but questions go unasked about foreign policy
I woke up this morning to this headline from the New York Times: “Trump Attacks Liz Cheney Using Violent War Imagery.” The headline on the article itself appears to have later been amended to Trump Assails Liz Cheney and Imagines Guns ‘Shooting at Her’.
It’s an interesting take on a story that misses the plot entirely. And it’s an important one that has to do with America’s predilection to war. Trump’s comment wasn’t so much about Cheney specifically but about the willingness of American politicians generally to send troops, money, arms, or all of the above to foreign hotspots.
Few journalists or podcasters this election cycle have asked the candidates for president or Congress their stances on America’s ongoing involvement in foreign conflicts. They’re too busy asking about abortion, racial voting patterns, and the candidates’ opinions on the 2020 election. Yet thousands of American troops are deployed all over the world. And where troops aren’t engaged, American munitions or dollars to buy munitions are.
Here is Trump’s exact comment: “She [Liz Cheney is] a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with the rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her. OK, let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face … You know they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building saying, ‘oh gee, well, let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.’”
What Trump was saying has been said in various ways in past election cycles, without controversy, and is worthy of deep exploration for any candidate with the power to deploy American assets overseas: If politicians themselves — or their kids — were the ones being called into service, they might second guess American involvement in foreign warzones. Or, unfortunately in my opinion, they might side with the U.S. military industrial complex and agree to foreign engagement. Still, shouldn’t voters get a clear understanding of what they’re getting with any candidate?
In previous election cycles, it was perfectly reasonable to demand of presidential and congressional candidates some semblance of vison with regard to troop deployment and foreign conflict. Whether presidents or congressmen actually keep their promises is another matter, e.g. a centerpiece of Woodrow Wilson’s 1916 presidential campaign was that “he kept us out of war.” A year later, Wilson was calling for a declaration of war against Germany.
This time, Americans have too little real stated commitment from either presidential candidate — Trump or Kamala Harris — on what to expect in terms of foreign policy. Trump at least has a record from his first term for not starting or escalating overseas conflicts, and he appears to be building on that, though with few specifics. His comment regarding Cheney adds some clarity.
Harris takes with her the Biden administration legacy, which she has sought to both embrace and distance herself from, depending on the policy and audience, and the Biden years has obviously seen an escalation in the U.S.’s role overseas. What Harris would do on her own is a bit of a mystery, due largely to media willingness to give her a pass on such a big question.
During the vice presidential debate, Tim Walz was asked about Ukraine’s desire to join NATO, and the candidate completely avoided offering an answer, and the debate moderators allowed that to happen. Yet the question is central to Ukraine’s conflict with Russia.
My preferred candidate for any office is one that keeps Americans out of foreign conflict. I’m probably not alone. On this topic this election, the media have done voters little service on a topic of monumental concern.