The Vance pick won’t mark a return to legitimate dissent 

Donald Trump’s selection of Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) as his 2024 running mate elicited great excitement from Republicans and provoked equal condemnation from Democrats.  

In American politics today, polar opposite views collide on virtually every issue, including Trump and Joe Biden calling each other the worst president in our history. One result is that legitimate and necessary debate is stifled. 

Vance must reinforce Trump’s positions on ending unlimited support for Ukraine, closing the border, deporting illegal migrants, imposing tariffs on imports, cutting taxes and giving Israel a blank check in Gaza while advocating a major U.S. defense and industrial base buildup.  

In an about-face with mainstream MAGA supporters‘ thinking that Iran is a major threat, Vance urges caution in how the U.S. approaches the Mullahs. To Vance, China must become a “focus,” implying tougher U.S. policies.

In a rational and apolitical world, many of Vance’s positions deserve serious debate.

Vance says his opposition to so-called endless wars stemmed from his Marines deployment to Iraq in 2005. However, Vance’s wartime experience was confined to relatively safe assignments as a combat correspondent and reporter, and then in public affairs. 

However, past failed decisions to go to war in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq make clear that debate is essential when using force.

Trump promises he will end the current two wars immediately. He does not say how. Reportedly, unless Vladimir Putin is granted concessions making Ukraine a permanent puppet under Moscow’s control, obtaining a viable and just peace agreement will be impossible. And aiding Ukraine “for as long as it takes”  is not a strategy.

About Israel, Vance is willing to allow the Israel Defense Forces under Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to flatten Gaza, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians in eliminating Hamas.  

Unfortunately in these as in other cases, no serious debate on U.S. policy has emerged. Instead, proponents and opponents on a particular issue hurl political brickbats at each other,  rejecting a rational discourse.

Like Trump, Vance calls for a renewed military buildup. Yet, neither Trump nor Republicans can show how spending more money on defense will lead to a stronger defense.  

Despite defense budgets with even modest growth, the size of the U.S. military continues to shrink. And if the war in Ukraine ends, why is a larger and stronger defense industrial base necessary, as the requirement for sending replacement weapons to  Ukraine will have disappeared and no longer makes sense?   

Focusing on China as “the pacing threat” is a position supported by a large majority of Vance’s colleagues in both houses of Congress. 

But regarding Iran, Vance advocates dealing with a regime that a series of Democratic and Republican administrations have branded the world’s “largest state sponsor of terrorism.” Further, Because Iran can become a nuclear weapons state quickly,  he concludes that the U.S. should be prepared to launch a preemptive first strike to eliminate that possibility.

As someone who believed that by 1967 the war in Vietnam was lost, opposed the second Iraq War because Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and in 2006 wrote with a former NATO supreme allied commander that “NATO is losing in Afghanistan,” Vance’s positions deserve civil and comprehensive discussion.

But America and many Americans are not interested in an informed civil debate. 

After the attempted assassination of Trump in Pennsylvania, a brief moment for lowering “the temperature of the rhetoric” persisted. However, both parties have resumed scorched earth campaigns to skewer the other side. And scathing sound bites and political slogans have returned.

As for Vance as a candidate, he will need to sort out the contradictions in his foreign policy recommendations regarding when and when not to use force, and understand that different choices for Gaza, Ukraine, Iran and China exist.

Obviously intelligent — Vance stood high in his classes at Ohio State and was editor of Yale’s Law Review — his ego is a problem.  So too is his flexible political backbone, having reversed his opinion of Trump from Hitler to hero with remarkable ease.

But if elected, by 2027, Vance will be eying 2028 and a run for the Oval Office. Then, his and Trump’s interests will collide. Trump needs a legacy that may not help Vance as he seeks to replace his mentor.

Both Trump and Vance need a two-word caution if elected: Mike Pence. Vance’s term could follow Pence’s trajectory. Then what?

Harlan Ullman, Ph.D., is a senior advisor at the Atlantic Council and the prime author of the “shock and awe” military doctrine. His 12th book, “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD:  How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large,” is available on Amazon.