OPINION:
Vice President Kamala Harris has adopted President Biden’s 2020 campaign strategy. She’ll hide in her basement and say nothing except “I’m not Donald Trump,” unless she is somehow compelled to answer major policy questions.
Every candidate is expected to adopt the policies in his or her party platform, and Ms. Harris must be expected to do what is in the Democratic Party platform or worse. It is a scrapyard of policies that the conservative media should wrap around her as tightly as a straitjacket.
For Democrats, especially Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris, national security and foreign policy are not taken seriously. Thus, the platform is a confusing document, sometimes referring to Mr. Biden’s second term and otherwise speaking of defense needs that are, the Democrats say, in conflict with the needs of diplomacy and domestic funding. Nevertheless, because Ms. Harris approved the platform, she’s stuck with it unless she dissents from it, which is hard to do while she’s hiding.
On defense spending, Ms. Harris’ platform says: “Democrats believe the measure of our security is not how much we spend on defense, but how we spend our defense dollars and in what proportion to other tools in our foreign policy toolbox and other urgent domestic investments. We believe we can and must ensure our security while restoring stability, predictability, and fiscal discipline in defense spending. We spend 13 times more on the military than we do on diplomacy. … We can maintain a strong defense and protect our safety and security for less.“
This column has maintained that our defense spending is only as effective as what it is spent on. But that’s not what Ms. Harris’ platform says or means.
The platform Ms. Harris is running on is based on “balancing” spending on diplomacy and other domestic policies with spending on defense. But defense is vastly more expensive because the assets required — spy satellites, ships, aircraft — cost vastly more than sending an ambassador to an embassy. If we spend 13 times as much on defense as on diplomacy, that indicates their relative value.
When in history has diplomacy succeeded in making or maintaining peace? Europe enjoyed almost a century of peace from the Battle of Waterloo until the outbreak of the First World War. But that peace wasn’t maintained by diplomacy; it was maintained by the balance of military power.
After World War II, the Soviet Union, a revolutionary state, wasn’t daunted in its ambitions by diplomacy but by the military deterrence doctrine of “mutually assured destruction.” China and Iran, each a revolutionary power, are not deterred by our supposed balance.
As history has proved repeatedly, defense and diplomacy must be intertwined in what used to be called the “mailed fist in the velvet glove.” Unless diplomacy is backed by sufficient military strength, it cannot do what Ms. Harris’ platform requires.
Ms. Harris’ plan to spend much more on diplomacy and far less on defense is not justified by diplomacy’s recent track record. Someone should ask her how many wars our diplomacy has deterred in the Biden era. Russia’s war in Ukraine, Hamas’ latest war on Israel and other current world conflicts were not prevented or ended.
Military deterrence prevents wars. Diplomacy cannot do so without the “mailed fist” behind it.
Mr. Biden’s weakness will be compounded if Ms. Harris is elected. As she said in 2017, she is devoted to Mr. Biden’s “woke” ideology, which is divisive and reduces both the readiness and lethality of the force. She aims to cut defense spending at a time when our Navy may be retiring 17 replenishment ships for lack of ability to crew them. Our combatant ships depend on them for the combatants’ ability to maintain their capabilities.
Our Navy is already at its smallest since World War II. It lacks sufficient combatant ships (especially in relation to the Chinese fleet) to maintain our defense. Both the Navy and Air Force need pilots and aircraft, and the Marine Corps (God bless ’em) may be transforming themselves into a combat force that depends on assets that may not exist under Ms. Harris to get them where they’re needed.
Under the heading of keeping the faith with military veterans and families, Ms. Harris’ platform says: “Democrats believe that we can’t maintain the force we need unless we take care of military families. … We will ensure pay and compensation keep pace with the current economy. We will also increase time between deployments.”
The time between deployments is dependent on two things: our military commitments to our own and our allies’ defenses and the number and type of assets that must be deployed. It’s obvious beyond the platform’s absurdities that you cannot slash defense spending, which means reducing the numbers of troops, aircraft and ships — without spreading the forces thinner than they already are. That can only mean shortening the time between deployments, not lengthening them.
Ms. Harris’ record and stated beliefs indicate that she will do just what her platform says. Our national security, and that of our allies, will be weaker if she is elected.
• Jed Babbin is a national security and foreign affairs columnist for The Washington Times and contributing editor for The American Spectator.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.