Lawfare Daily: National Security and the 2024 Election, Armed Conflict
Sep 14, 2024
auto_awesome
In this lively discussion, Scott R. Anderson, a Brookings Fellow, Dmitri Alperovitch, Co-Founder of Silverado Policy Accelerator, Kori Schake from the American Enterprise Institute, and Natan Sachs, Director of the Center for Middle East Policy, dive into critical national security issues as they relate to the 2024 election. They dissect Kamala Harris's and Donald Trump's differing foreign policies, especially regarding Ukraine, Israel, and NATO. The panel also explores the implications of these approaches on future U.S. aid and global alliances.
Trump's international relations approach emphasizes ambiguity, potentially undermining U.S. commitments and emboldening adversarial nations like Russia and China.
Vice President Harris faces challenges in differentiating her foreign policy from Biden's while addressing humanitarian concerns in Gaza alongside support for Israel.
The debate showcased stark foreign policy differences between candidates, particularly in their approach to NATO and relations with adversarial nations.
Deep dives
Trump's Negotiation Style and Foreign Policy
Trump's self-image as a dealmaker shapes his approach to international relations, often prioritizing keeping options open rather than adhering to established agreements. This ambiguity can embolden adversarial nations, creating uncertainty about U.S. commitments and leading to challenges against existing international obligations. In discussions about Ukraine, for example, Trump's evasive responses during debates highlight his reluctance to commit firmly to supporting Ukrainian sovereignty. The possibility of erratic policy shifts under a Trump administration raises concerns about the strategic reliability of the U.S. as a dominant global actor.
Debate Insights and Candidate Differences
The recent presidential debate illuminated stark contrasts between the candidates' foreign policy stances, especially regarding national security issues. While Trump focused on high-profile talking points, his lack of direct commitment to supporting Ukraine during critical questioning was notable. Comparatively, the panel discussion preceding the debate revealed more nuanced understandings of the candidates' policies, suggesting that while their rhetoric diverges sharply, the fundamental strategic differences may be subtler than perceived. Overall, the debate served to exaggerate existing perceptions of how each candidate envisions America’s security and foreign relations.
Continuity and Change in Foreign Policy Agendas
Although there was a historical overlap in foreign policy between the Trump and Biden administrations, a prospective second Trump term could signify a departure from established norms, especially regarding alliances. The panel noted that while Biden pursued a consistent approach toward China, Trump’s return could introduce unpredictability, with implications for collaborative efforts against adversaries. With current dynamics around Ukraine shaping perceptions, the unpredictability in Trump's rhetoric could further complicate how allies respond to American foreign policy direction. This uncertainty may lead to risks in international alliances forged during heightened tensions.
Kamala Harris's Balancing Act
Harris faces the challenge of distinguishing her foreign policy stances from Biden's while maintaining support from his administration's decisions. Her approach to complex issues like Gaza reflects a delicate balancing act of advocating for humanitarian concerns while reinforcing U.S. ties with Israel. Harris's comments during the debate suggest a commitment to continuing major support for Israel, yet she also emphasizes the urgent need to address and acknowledge the humanitarian crisis in Palestinian territories. Striking a balance between these competing interests requires adept navigation to avoid alienating either side of the political spectrum.
NATO and the Implications of Leadership Change
A shift in U.S. leadership under Trump could lead to significant alterations in NATO dynamics, primarily characterized by Trump's skepticism of collective defense commitments. Trump's previous critiques of NATO allies' defense spending raised concerns among member states about whether the U.S. would honor its defense obligations. The implications are clear, with allies needing to navigate the uncertainty posed by a leader who views NATO as leverage rather than a steadfast alliance. This could prompt European nations to bolster their own defenses independently, eroding the cohesive deterrence NATO has maintained.
Future of U.S.-China Relations
Both candidates appear aligned in confronting China, yet their methodologies and impact on U.S. foreign policy could differ significantly. The Biden administration's focus on multilateralism versus a potential Trump administration's inclination toward unilateral action brings to light the complexities of international economic and security strategies. Trump's administration may prioritize swift action against China's technological advancements, which could lead to quicker decisions devoid of aligning closely with allies. This contrast emphasizes the potential fractures in approaching the multifaceted challenges posed by China and the broader implications for regional stability.
In a live recording on September 10, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes moderated a panel discussion featuring Lawfare Senior Editor and Brookings Fellow Scott R. Anderson, Co-Founder and Chairman of Silverado Policy Accelerator Dmitri Alperovitch, American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Kori Schake, and the Center for Middle East Policy Director and Brookings Senior Fellow Natan Sachs. They discussed Harris’s policy positions on U.S. military and economic aid to Ukraine, the Israel-Gaza War, NATO, and aid to Taiwan. This was the first panel in Lawfare's new livestream series, Lawfare Live: National Security and the 2024 Election. The next panel will be on Sept. 24.
This episode also includes a conversation between Benjamin Wittes and Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien about the national security policies discussed at the Sept. 10 debate between Vice President Harris and former President Trump.