The ancient philosopher Aristotle once said: “It is more difficult to organize peace than to win a war, but the fruits of victory will be lost if the peace is not well organized.” Although this was said thousands of years ago, the wisdom of this saying still strikes a chord today. We have seen an increase in wars and conflicts all over the globe, from Ukraine and Sudan, to Gaza and Lebanon. Peace however, as seen in the case of Gaza and Ukraine, has become seemingly impossible to reach. Although wars might initially have a positive political impact, prolonged and endless wars will eventually take their toll on any government.
Not only are countries directly involved in military conflicts affected politically, but countries that engage in conflict in other ways, such as economically or politically, are also likely to experience the effects. A relevant example of this today is the United States, a country that has a major involvement, as well as a major stake, in a majority of today’s unfolding conflicts. From Europe to the Middle East, the presence of American advisors and diplomats, as well as their equipment and weapons, make their mark. With the current presidential race in the United States, it is estimated that the question of American involvement in foreign conflicts will serve as a major backdrop of the election in November.
This year’s election campaigns have been atypically unstable. There has been the sudden dropout of Joe Biden from the election after a disastrous presidential debate, which meant the impromptu nomination of Kamala Harris as the Democratic party’s presidential candidate. Then there has also been the forced change in tactics by the Trump campaign following the dropout, shifting away from personal attacks on Joe Biden, to focusing on topics such as immigration and taxes.
In the midst of this disarray, the main foreign policy issues that have emerged might also be the ones to have the heaviest impact on the election. For the Democrats, the main foreign policy challenge will be addressing the current administration’s failure to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, following the Israeli siege and bombardment that succeeded the 7 October attacks. Resolving this issue is crucial, as the party must take a clear stance to appeal to the majority of its voters, who overwhelmingly support a ceasefire. The issue has recently become especially relevant after the current U.S. administration has signaled that ceasefire negotiations between Hamas and Israel have essentially failed and are unlikely to happen.
The dilemma for the Democrats therefore becomes evident. Do they risk their strategic partnership with Israel by forcing its hand to a ceasefire, or do they risk dividing the core Democratic voters which could have a heavy impact on election results? The pressure on the Democratic leadership increases even further considering the pro-Palestinian protests that were organized ahead of the Democratic National Convention this August. The protesters addressed both Biden and Harris, demanding an end to American weapons being sent to Israel in order to stop their usage in the Gaza strip.
Image by Can Pac Swire on Flickr
An even bigger issue for the Democratic party is the current administration’s need to prevent a comprehensive, all-out war between Israel and Iran in the Middle East. The concern over such a conflict has intensified following an Israeli invasion into Lebanon on October 1st, which was undertaken in order to fight the Iran-aligned group “Hezbollah”. A military conflict between Israel and Iran would be the spark of an even bigger regional war including a variety of actors in the Middle East, potentially impacting oil prices and the global economy. That is a scenario that the Democrats certainly don’t want to have on their record.
On the other side of the political arena, the Republicans, including their presidential nominee Donald Trump, have shown increasing skepticism toward American support and backing of Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. One of the key criticisms raised is that the country is receiving excessive military aid without any meaningful progress in peace negotiations, which in turn could mean that the longer the war goes on, the heftier the bill becomes for the United States. This has led Trump and the Republicans to advocate for a peace deal that expects Ukraine to give up some of the territory it has lost in the conflict, something which is perceived as advantageous to Russia. However, this proposal has been controversial in the Ukrainian leadership with Ukrainian president Zelensky dismissing it after his recent meeting with Trump.
Trump’s skepticism toward Ukraine seems to be a representation of his overall unenthusiastic feelings toward European military affairs, especially the NATO alliance, of which the United States is currently an essential partner of. Long before the hostilities between Russia and Ukraine began, Trump made it clear that he was negative toward the idea of the United States being the main protector of Europe while also being the major financial supporter for its defense. He has repeatedly made it clear how he plans to ease American support and funding for the organization, even threatening to leave the alliance and abandon the member countries in case of a military conflict. The position that he has taken regarding this issue might signal an increasing Republican opposition to American involvement in foreign wars, most likely because of the pricey bill that it entails for the government, and ultimately, the taxpayers themselves.
Some governments might see short term benefits in being involved in conflict, either from a political or strategic perspective, but ultimately the question that arises in the long term is whether perpetual conflicts are sustainable and moral in the eyes of the voters. In the coming U.S. election, the pressure to push for ceasefire in different parts of the world is higher than ever from both sides of the American political spectrum, something which might lead politicians to think twice the next time they have the option between war and peace.
