Reviewed: The liberal response to Trump’s anti-war PR campaign
Speaking Security Newsletter | Advisory Note for Organizers and Candidates, n°43 | 9 September 2020
Situation
The liberal response
Trump obviously has zero credibility (+$129.3 billion in military spending over his tenure; more arms sales; etc), so what he said warrants critique. But any issued by centrist Democrats runs into the same credibility problem.
This is because the thing they’re criticizing Trump for actually being is what they are themselves. And House Democrats recently made that clear with the provisions they included in the most recent NDAA (and by nominating someone who voted for the Iraq War for President):
Section 1241: Limits the ability of the President to withdraw U.S. troops from Germany
Section 1252: Bars reduction of U.S. troops in South Korea below 28,500
Section 1213: Limits reduction of US troops from Afghanistan
Does this hurt Biden’s chances
Yes:
“Our statistical model suggests that if three states key to Trump’s [2016] victory — Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin — had suffered even a modestly lower casualty rate [re: US military personnel in conflict, 2001-16], all three could have flipped from red to blue and sent Hillary Clinton to the White House.”
Can they be helped
The study above concludes with this:
Seems pretty reasonable. But are we dealing with reasonable people? After all, this wouldn’t even be a problem if Party leadership listened to its base: 79 percent of surveyed Democrats said they want to end the War on Terror operations in Afghanistan and the Middle East.
Thanks for your time,
Stephen (@stephensemler; stephen@securityreform.org)
Find this note useful? Please consider becoming a supporter of SPRI. Unlike establishment think tanks, we rely exclusively on small donations.