Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is definitely running for president. And her Thursday speech at American University will help her stand out in the Democratic field — it was unique for its nostalgia for the booming economy of the Carter era.
But Warren also offered her outline for national security policy, and that’s worth taking seriously.
“Russia has become belligerent and resurgent,” Warren correctly observed. “China has weaponized its economy without loosening its domestic political constraints.” Later in the speech, Warren added that “Both China and Russia invest heavily in their militaries and other tools of national power. Both hope to shape spheres of influence in their own image. Both are working flat out to remake the global order to suit their own priorities. Both are working to undermine the basic human rights we hold dear. And if we cannot make our government work for all Americans, China and Russia will almost certainly succeed.”
This is good, honest realism. But how would the former law professor grapple with these geopolitical foes? Despite admitting that Russia and China “invest heavily” in their militaries, Warren said that the proper response is to “cut our bloated defense budget.” But don’t worry, she added: The U.S. can “identify which programs actually benefit American security in the 21st century, and which programs merely line the pockets of defense contractors.”
This is easier said than done. Unfortunately, the Pentagon has successfully thwarted the efforts of all previous leaders (including Barack Obama) to separate out the waste. It’s especially difficult because no one wants to experiment with military readiness because it’s literally a life-or-death issue. And even if the waste could be found and eliminated, the reality of U.S. security would still require significant defense spending, such that it would only make sense to plow any savings from waste back into the defense budget.
In the face of the threats we face from states such as China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia, this is not a good moment to cut defense spending. Note that Britain and France have chosen to urgently increase their defense outlays, even though they both face major budget shortfalls. Those countries’ leaders have not taken that decision lightly.
It is on nuclear deterrence that Warren truly enters wonderland. Here, the senator’s three-pronged plans seem drawn from a Kremlin dream. Her call for “no new nuclear weapons” would greatly endanger both U.S. nuclear deterrence and U.S. nuclear strike capability. That’s a problem, because when it comes to nuclear deterrence, the stakes are not just a lost war, but the loss of America itself.
Warren’s plan for Afghanistan consists of yet another weary talking point: “Rather than fighting in an Afghan civil war, let’s help them reach a realistic peace settlement that halts the violence and protects our security … It’s time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, starting now.”
We agree that the U.S. needs to curb its ambitions in Afghanistan. We don’t think immediate redeployment could bring “a realistic peace settlement.”
Warren has at least put a foreign policy outlook on the table for others to pick over. For that, she deserves a lot of credit. But her foray into this topic should serve as a warning to other Democrats that they’re going to have to do better, and that that might not be so easy to do if they intend to keep their left-wing base happy.
