For the sake of national security, Republicans must avoid ‘oppositeness syndrome’

There are many valid reasons to criticize President Biden on both domestic and foreign policy grounds. But some Republicans are in danger of damaging their own national security credentials when they attack Biden for following policies that the Republican Party traditionally has supported and/or that President Trump’s administration fostered.

The GOP is justified in attacking Biden’s major deficiencies and failures as commander in chief: his disastrous and shameful abandonment of Afghanistan; his failure to deter Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine and hesitant, dilatory supply of weapons to Ukraine designed to encourage a military stalemate and negotiated political “solution” rather than Ukraine’s victory; his embarrassing attempts to revive the deeply-flawed Iran nuclear agreement; his failure to provide moral and rhetorical support to the Iranian people’s opposition to their regime, similar to the Obama administration’s refusal to stand with Iranian protestors in 2009; his inept handling of the Chinese spy balloon episode; and, the most immediate threat to U.S. national security, his disastrous open-border policy that has brought a flood of illegal migrants, deadly fentanyl, and some dangerous criminals into this country.

But in leveling their criticisms, Republicans should avoid making exaggerated claims that the Trump administration would have done things better. Far from proving that all was safe, secure and orderly when Trump was in power, some of Biden’s failures are continuations of his predecessor’s policies.  

Regarding Afghanistan, Trump, like Biden, wanted an immediate end to America’s “forever war” there, and reached the Doha Agreement with the Taliban, over the head of the Afghan government. But, while Biden has not hesitated to reverse Trump policies he disliked, he falsely argues that his hands were tied by Trump’s Taliban deal. As president, Biden had the power to reject Trump’s agreement outright when it became clear the Taliban would not honor it and the Afghan government was not ready to defend the country without U.S. support. Or, he could have modified the terms of the deal by accomplishing the withdrawal in a responsible, measured and humane manner, leaving a U.S. contingent to reassure Afghan allies. Instead, he chose the third and worst course: carrying out the deal literally and precipitously. He owns that decision and its disastrous consequences and has replaced a forever war with a forever blot on his legacy.

On Russia and Ukraine, during Biden’s first two years, he followed the deluded policies of three previous administrations. In 2001, President Bush said of Vladimir Putin, “I looked the man in the eye. … I was able to get a sense of his soul.” Then, after urging NATO to open its door to Georgia and Ukraine, he did nothing when Russia invaded Georgia in 2008.  

In 2012, President Obama whispered to Dmitri Medvedev, Putin’s presidential stand-in, to tell his boss he would have “more flexibility” after his reelection. Safely into his second term, Obama withheld weapons systems for Ukraine and averted his gaze when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, and when it entered Syria to help Bashar al-Assad murder his population and contemptuously cross Obama’s “red lines.”

Trump continued Obama’s practice of holding back arms for Ukraine until he extracted political concessions. He called Putin “a genius” and later praised his invasion of Ukraine: “I’d say that’s pretty smart. He’s taking over a country — really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people — and just walking right in.”

No current Republican critic of Biden’s Russia-Ukraine policy openly adopts Trump’s adoring, pro-Putin stance. Instead, most urge Biden to step up the pace and enhance the range and lethality of arms being provided to Ukraine. They want the Biden administration to convert its stalemate policy, where neither side wins outright, to one of Ukraine’s success in expelling Russian forces from all Ukraine territory occupied since 2014.  

To forestall that U.S.-NATO policy shift, China — Russia’s “no-limits strategic partner” — has been sending “non-lethal” weapons parts and dual-use equipment for Russia’s military use in Ukraine. Beijing is now considering providing overtly lethal systems, which Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other administration officials say is a new U.S. “red line” not to cross. 

The danger is that Xi Jinping will use the moral equivalency, anti-escalation ploy against Biden and trade Chinese abstention on arms to Russia for Western curtailment of arms to Ukraine — e.g., tanks, fighter aircraft, and longer-range missiles and munitions. That is a cynical and defeatist deal that Biden seems perfectly capable of making.

Unfortunately, there are some Republicans who might be willing to go along with it in the interest of reducing or even eliminating the U.S. commitment to Ukraine. A few tend to be on the isolationist side of the fence and simply oppose U.S. overseas commitments as a wasteful diversion of resources from domestic needs. Some are tempted to oppose the policy simply because it is Biden’s and they want to be on record as opposing just about everything he favors — just as Biden and the Democrats opposed all of Trump’s initiatives, whether they were sound or not.

But, as Sen. Arthur Vandenberg said when he abandoned isolationism and joined President Truman’s anti-communist campaign and the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe: “Politics stops at the water’s edge.”  

The neo-isolationists are not wrong to advocate for attention to U.S. domestic requirements, particularly the need to secure America’s southern border. Nor are they off-base in wanting to ensure there is no waste or corruption in the expenditure of public funds.   

Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) strikes the right balance in all these concerns. He strongly favors the U.S. commitment to Ukraine and believes it has been too slow and halting. But he also wants to see more transparency and accountability to ensure that funds are going toward their intended purpose. He also wants a greater contribution to Ukraine’s defense from larger European states that are more directly affected by Russia’s aggression. He has noted that the costly present war might have been averted if Washington and the West had resisted Putin’s aggression years earlier.

U.S. commitments to both Ukraine and Taiwan are in the finest national security tradition of the Republican Party. It will help the cause of freedom and democracy in both places if Republicans and Democrats stay united, as they largely have been to the present. Communist China and revanchist Russia would like nothing more than to see American unity splinter, even as they become united in their aggressive goals.

Joseph Bosco is a member of the advisory board of the Vandenberg Coalition, an organization devoted to bipartisan cooperation on foreign policy and national security issues. He was China country director for the secretary of Defense (2005-2006) and Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (2009 to 2010). He served in the Pentagon when Vladimir Putin invaded Georgia and was involved in Department of Defense discussions about the U.S. response. Follow him on Twitter @BoscoJosephA.