OPINION:
I was recently part of a conversation about the election with a crew from finance land, and the question arose — as it has repeatedly arisen this campaign season — what former President Donald Trump’s plan is to “solve” the war between Ukraine and Russia should he return to the White House in January.
I found that annoying, mostly because I’ve never heard any of the corporate people who typically inhabit these events ask for President Biden’s plan to solve the war between Ukraine and Russia.
While Mr. Trump has indicated he would bring the combatants together and urge them to settle on reasonable terms, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris seem perfectly at ease shipping more American cash and more American weapons to Ukraine and not really thinking — or caring — about how this conflict might conclude.
The reality is that neither side will likely be able to militarily defeat the other. That means that people are being killed and wounded for no purpose. It also means that American taxpayers are paying for the extension of a war that our leaders know neither side can win. Moreover, defense contractors, aided by Sen. Mitch McConnell and others, have made explicit arguments that dead people in Ukraine and Russia mean more profits for the companies that make the weapons being bought by American taxpayers and sent to Ukraine.
Surely this is not the path that George Washington and the other Founding Fathers intended for us.
Mr. Biden has done nothing to try to end the war; his big plan appears to begin and end by sending Ukraine increasingly more lethal weapons and increasingly larger amounts of cash and hoping that the Russians give up. This strategy has led us to American long-range missiles killing people in Russia, something that dictator Vladimir Putin has (probably correctly) identified as an act of war by the United States.
When do we decide that the killing has gone on long enough?
Questions about Israel are also common at these functions. Again, an uncomfortably large amount of Israeli armament originates in the United States. At what point do we decide that the Israelis have killed enough people in retaliation for what happened on Oct. 7?
Let’s be clear about two things. First, the Ukrainians and the Israelis are in the right. They have the right to defend themselves. That right, however, is unlimited. Second, their right to defend themselves does not mean that American taxpayers are required to fund whatever the Ukrainians and Israelis choose to do. It is perfectly acceptable for us to decide that the killing — or at least our part in it — has gone on long enough.
On a final note, the Biden administration is undoubtedly incapable of stopping the killing, even if it were so inclined. There is also no doubt, especially among my interlocutors at these functions, that Mr. Trump not only can but will stop the killing in the Middle East and Ukraine. In that sense, the questions are a tacit acknowledgment that Mr. Trump, whatever else one might think of him, is a leader.
It is human nature to gravitate toward strength. Osama bin Laden, one of our most daring and durable enemies in the last 25 years, said: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will prefer the strong horse.”
He was, of course, correct in this assessment. It is something voters might want to think about as they cast their votes; those worldwide who harbor nothing but malice for us and our friends certainly think about it. Which of the current contestants is the strong horse, and which is the weak one? And what does that mean for the United States?
• Michael McKenna is a contributing editor at The Washington Times.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.