~~ recommended by newestbeginning ~~
“Enough is enough,” Bernie Sanders says in response
 |
“As commander-in-chief, I will ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world,” Kamala Harris said during her keynote address at the DNC on Thursday. It’s neither a meaningful personal statement nor is it any kind of policy: the Vice President is pledging allegiance to the national security complex.
But the remark sure triggered a whole lot of consternation, as embodied by the following tweet:
 |
The backlash wasn’t limited to Twitter. Harris’ former Senate colleague, Bernie Sanders, responded to her comment on ABC’s This Week. “All due respect, the United States is now spending more than the next 10 nations combined on defense,” Sanders said. “We want the strongest defense in the world. But I do think enough is enough. You’re seeing military contractors profits soaring, and I think we can have the strongest defense in the world without spending a trillion dollars a year.”
Harris’ statement is a worrisome sign that she might not be willing to challenge the primacy of all things national security, particularly the Biden administration’s decision to support Israel in the ongoing war in Gaza. The phrase struck me as unremarkable, the usual performative jingoism Democratic candidates think wards off the “peacenik” label — as if McGovern just lost to Nixon yesterday. But to my surprise, the only other politicians to have used the phrase (“most lethal fighting force in the world”) appear to be Republicans. Here’s what they said (emphasis mine):
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), in a June press release titled, “Rep. Clyde Votes to Support Troops & De-Woke DOD,” said: “As a 28-year Navy combat veteran, ensuring we maintain the most lethal fighting force in the world is one of my top priorities in Congress.”
Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE), in a May press release on proposed legislation said that it “makes strides in developing the needed technologies to deter Chinese aggression and ensure that the United States remains the most lethal fighting force in the world.”
Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AK), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Rick Scott (R-FL), Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) in a 2021 resolution said that “President Biden's proposed defense budget would be insufficient to address…the need for sufficient military support to deter our enemies and maintain the most lethal fighting force in the world.”
All but two of these electeds, Sens. Scott and Cornyn, are military veterans. Aside from them, the only other place in government I could find the phrase used was by the U.S. military itself. Here are some examples (emphasis mine):
Army Chief of Staff General James C. McConville said in 2022: “TRADOC’s efforts are essential and foundational to ensuring our Army remains the most lethal fighting force in the world, and I promise you to stay committed to the very end.”
Air Force General Jacquelin D. Van Ovost said in 2023: "That's why we have to continue to recruit and retain talented women and men in our service, capable of thinking creatively, differently, innovating with the technology that we have, so that we can create new concepts and capabilities so that we can remain first and foremost, the most lethal fighting force in the world.”
Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Earl Hannon said in 2013: “But, as warriors in the most lethal fighting force in the world, we refuse to allow the mission to fail - we will do most anything to ensure mission success.”
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin took it a step further last year. “The U.S. military is the most lethal fighting force in human history,” Austin said in a speech at the Reagan National Defense Forum (emphasis added). This is textbook jingoism, both proclaiming America the Greatest of All Time and expecting the public to agree.
That Harris is using language familiar to generals and veterans suggests that she is seeking that very group’s acceptance and support. That’s not a scandal, obviously; but it does hint that Harris views the national security community as a constituency or at least one she doesn’t want to cross swords with (heh).
“She obviously stood by a muscular US presence in the world,” Brookings Institution senior fellow in governance studies, Elaine Kamarck, says. Saying that Harris’ speech conveyed that she “understood the stakes in Ukraine” as well as “the need for continued support and security for Israel,” Kamarck opines that she was “pleasantly surprised at just how strong her words and tone were when she got to foreign policy.”
“She had great respect for the military,” Kamarck concludes (I’ll keep an eye on her to see what position she is offered if there is a Harris administration.)
Further evidence for Harris’ warm relations with the national security world can be found in the endorsements she’s already garnered from former top national security officials. Immediately after Harris’ DNC speech, the National Security Leaders for America’s president retired Rear Admiral Mike Smith issued a statement praising her for advancing a “powerful vision,” one which “strengthens our republic, and renews our commitment to justice, safety, and security for all Americans.” The group, which describes itself as a “bipartisan organization comprised of individuals who served in various senior leadership positions that include all six military branches” also says its membership includes “over 700 senior national security leaders.”
There’s also the list of former national security leaders who have already endorsed Harris long before the convention. The 27-page long letter was released on July 23, just two days after President Biden announced he was dropping out of the race. Particularly interesting is the bipartisan character of the list. While it’s possible the long list of former top Obama officials are simply endorsing for reasons of party loyalty, the list includes many national security bureaucrats as well as the following prominent former Republican appointees:
Michael V. Hayden — former CIA Director (George W. Bush)
James R. Clapper — former Director of National Intelligence (George W. Bush)
Richard Haass — former Special Assistant (George H.W. Bush) and Director, State Department Policy Planning Staff (George W. Bush)
Robert D. Blackwill — former Deputy National Security Advisor and Ambassador to India (George W. Bush)
The letter praises Harris’ “integral role in restoring U.S. global leadership around the world,” pointing to the advice she has provided Biden:
“She has been by the President’s side in the Oval Office and in the Situation Room managing high-stakes international crises and advising on the toughest decisions – from the U.S. response to Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, to the United States’ defense of Israel when Iran attacked in April 2024, to U.S. strikes against al-Qaeda leaders.”
Of course that’s the first we’ve really heard of Vice President Harris engaging in any of the “hard” power aspects of national security. It’s not like she’s been a Dick Cheney as vice president, or even a Joe Biden.
So Harris has gained the support of the national security establishment. But it feels like it’s more a Washington-spawned strategy to guard her flank than it is any statement of her values or intentions.
Harris can’t win without the youth vote, experts say, but to many young people, what they see is a Biden-Harris administration that has failed to bring the Israel-Hamas war to an end. Nor did they see an America that is lethal enough to have deterred the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the first place; or a Biden administration that has stopped the endless wars. And therein lies the problem with Harris’ friendly relationship with the national security world: it cannot be reconciled with the demands of the innumerable young people who want to see major changes in the U.S. role in the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment