Harris and Trump Say They Want Peace. But Neither Has a Plan.
Kamala Harris couldn’t realistically say how she would end the war in Gaza, and Donald Trump couldn’t realistically say how he would end the war in Ukraine.

Tuesday night's presidential debate was a reprieve from the hawk-off that the 2024 campaign has become. Rather than trying to out-hawk each other, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump defended peace on the merits. Harris even bragged about ending an "endless war," after the Democratic Party took that phrase out of this year's notoriously hawkish platform.
But when it came to ending current wars, neither candidate could articulate how they would do it. Trump gave a peace plan for Ukraine that amounted to magical handwaving, and Harris delivered a word salad of an answer about a ceasefire in Gaza. Although she praised the end of the Afghan war, Harris also attacked Trump for negotiating the very truce that allowed U.S. forces to leave, accusing him of appeasing terrorists.
The candidates' hawkish turn over the past few months had put them out of step with the American public. A recent poll commissioned by the Cato Institute found that swing state voters believe that the U.S. is too involved in foreign conflicts, worry about escalating to a world war, and plan to vote accordingly. Harris and Trump tried to appeal to those instincts—while avoiding any commitment to diplomacy and restraint.
"I agree with President [Joe] Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan. Four presidents said they would, and Joe Biden did. And as a result, America's taxpayers are not paying the $300 million a day we were paying for that endless war," Harris said.
But she called Trump's peace deal, which Biden followed through on, as "one of the weakest deals you can imagine." Harris alluded to a recent interview with Trump's former national security adviser, John Bolton, attacking the truce. Bolton, for his part, would have preferred the United States stay in Afghanistan indefinitely.
The problem, Harris claimed, was that Trump "negotiated directly with a terrorist organization called the Taliban," and brought them to "a place where we honor the importance of American diplomacy, where we invite and receive respected world leaders."
Of course, it's hard to see how any country could achieve a peace deal without talking to its enemies. "I got involved with the Taliban because the Taliban was doing the killing. That's the fighting force within Afghanistan," Trump responded. "They don't bother doing that because, you know, they deal with the wrong people all the time."
He also promised to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. "It's the U.S.'s best interest to get this war finished and just get it done, negotiate a deal, because we have to stop all of these human lives from being destroyed," Trump said. Asked how he would stop it, Trump retreated into wishful thinking.
"I know [Ukrainian leader Volodymyr] Zelenskyy very well, and I know [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin very well. I have a good relationship," he said. "I will get it settled before I even become president—if I win, when I'm president-elect—and what I'll do is I'll speak to one, I'll speak to the other. I'll get them together," Trump added.
In the spring of 2022, shortly after the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the two sides did get together and even wrote draft treaties. It quickly became clear what the sticking points were: Russia wanted Ukraine to give up territory that Ukrainians would not give up, and Ukraine wanted guarantees of foreign military protection that Russia would not allow. Since then, the positions on these issues have hardened.
At the Trump-Biden debate two months ago, Trump said that Russia's terms were "not acceptable." At last night's debate, he did not explain which demands he would want Russia to drop or how he would get Russia to drop them.
Harris, meanwhile, bragged about the American-made weapons that she has helped flood into Ukraine, and claimed that Trump would "give up for the sake of favor and what you think is a friendship with what is known to be a dictator who would eat you for lunch." She claimed without evidence that if the U.S. did not back Ukraine's fight, Putin would have continued on to invade Poland.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both candidates tried to have their cake and eat it, too. Asked point blank whether her approach would differ from that of Biden, who has promised since February that a ceasefire is right around the corner, Harris dodged the question.
She said that the war in Gaza must end "immediately" with a ceasefire deal that frees Israeli hostages, and that the administration is working "around the clock" for a solution that provides "security for the Israeli people and Israel, and an equal measure for the Palestinians."
Harris also signaled that the U.S. would support Israel in an expanded regional war. "I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself, in particular, as it relates to as it relates to Iran, and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel," she stated.
Trump, on the other hand, said that Harris "hates Israel" and "in her own way, she hates the Arab population, because the whole place is going to get blown up." He claimed that the war simply never would have started under a Trump administration because "Iran had no money for Hamas or Hezbollah or any of the 28 different spheres of terror" due to the economic embargo that Trump imposed.
Biden has continued to enforce Trump's economic sanctions, and Trump himself admitted last week that U.S. sanctions are simply eroding their own effectiveness over time. But at the debate, Trump claimed that "Iran has $300 billion because they took off all the sanctions that I had." It's unclear where he got that number (or what "28 different spheres of terror" means, for that matter). Two months ago, former Iranian President Hassan Rouhani claimed that Iran had lost $300 billion in oil revenue during the Biden era.
Perhaps the most egregious spin, however, was when Harris claimed that "there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone, in any war zone around the world, for the first time this century." U.S. forces continue to fight the older battles of the war on terror, as well as new battles caused by the war in Gaza spilling over into the region.
Two weeks ago, seven U.S. troops were injured during a raid in Iraq.
The Biden administration has simply refused to acknowledge that these conflicts exist, using what former State Department lawyer Brian Finucane calls legal "gamesmanship" to avoid reporting to Congress. For example, instead of admitting that the U.S. is waging a naval war off the coast of Yemen, the administration is treating each clash as a one-off incident. The Trump administration also tried to spin its deliberate escalations against Iran as spontaneous acts of self-defense.
That seems to be the new bipartisan consensus: If you can't actually end wars, just pretend that they're not happening.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Kamala Harris couldn’t realistically say how she would end the war in Gaza
Probably through some type of imperialism I would presume...
The headline (and byline) is an insane 52-card pickup of blameshifting.
Why is either conflict the responsibility of any future POTUS to end?
Even if it is the responsibility of a future POTUS to end why does Trump's lack of a plan for a war started under the Biden-Harris Administration count "equally" against him in the same manner that Harris' lack of a plan for *another* war that started under the Biden-Harris Administration?
Even if it is the responsibility of a future POTUS to end foreign wars and even if both wars started under the Biden-Harris Administration mysteriously fall equally into Trump and Harris' lap why are the two wars themselves assumed equal in terms of having a plan, policy, or the ability to discuss them? That is, wouldn't Harris be free to plot as openly as she wanted to end the war in Gaza because neither Gaza nor Israel is influencing US elections to the point that we need to be careful about who says what but Trump is obviously just being OPSEC-sensible because there are Russian spies lurking behind every corner.
Both issues would have been solved decades ago if the US hadn't decided to get involved.
Agree to disagree.
We have so much democracy to share!
Buttplug and Dick Cheney agree.
Kamala wants the kind of peace you get from selling trillions of dollars of weapons to our enemies enemies. The kind of peace that Marxists promise will come after a long campaign of genocide.
I think you meant to say “ By selling trillions of dollars of weapons to our enemies“.
You could start with ending the funding of the most corrupt regime in the Europe, the Ukraine.
But I doubt that will happen.
That makes too much sense.
Everyone who has died in the conflict is "at peace".
It’s a shame that more Democrats aren’t “at peace“.
>>Donald Trump couldn’t realistically say how he would end the war in Ukraine.
bro that's KH's mess what you meant was T couldn't state on the fly how he'd clean up KH's mess. also there was peace. then Biden-Harris.
Based on Trump’s track record, all he really has to do is follow the same basic playbook he did in his first term. That seem to work pretty well.
yes.
Where is it?
Trump doesn't really care how the shooting stops in Ukraine, because he refuses to take sides, or at least declines to take Ukraine's side.
Substitute Harris and Israel.
Fighting stops when one side admits they lost.
Trump isn't wrong to suggest that Putin invaded because he didn't see strong opposition. Biden was too senile to travel to Europe to deliver an ultimatum, so he sent Harris. Putin took that as a sign of weakness.
After 2 years, I'd like to think that the EU is fully capable of supplying munitions to Ukraine without us. And if it's not true, this can be a teaching moment.
I have no problem selling munitions to Europe. So long as we increase out munitions capacity to the point where we have at least 6 months of continuous wartime operations available on hand before selling surplus. The one thing the Ukraine war has been useful for is showing just how quickly our munitions stocks deplete and how poor our industrial capacity to replace them is.
"In the spring of 2022, shortly after the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the two sides did get together and even wrote draft treaties. It quickly became clear what the sticking points were: Russia wanted Ukraine to give up territory that Ukrainians would not give up, and Ukraine wanted guarantees of foreign military protection that Russia would not allow. Since then, the positions on these issues have hardened."
Yeah the biggest sticking point came into play when the Biden regime dispatched Boris Johnson to threaten Zelenski with repercussions if he continued to negotiate with Putin. I didn't watch the debate but as I understand it the moderators tried on several occasions to force Trump into agreeing that Ukraine must "win" the war. Whatever that means. Trump's goal is to end the war. Harris will continue it until the last Ukrainian is dead.
The biggest step Trump can take towards bringing peace to Ukraine is to reverse Harris’ policy of opposing peace in Ukraine.
I forgot that this was the President of the World campaign.
Harris has the big Dick’s endorsement. Enough said.
Harris wants peace? Since when? Biden Harris incompetence is more likely to lead to WWIII than peace.
She wants to win. Anything else is unpatriotic. Trump took the moral response.
How? Host both leaders in Greenland. Push Russian oil and gas on the Europeans. Cutting that demand will also lower our prices. Split the Donbas into no man's land for 10 years and let them decide then. UN monitor it. Russia gets money. We lower prices. Quit funding Ukraine. Withdraw any consideration of Ukraine in NATO. Lots of things that could be negotiated. I am not an expert but a true leader would be trying to stop this, not feeding the flames in order to "win". Even Trump knows nobody wins.
Why are either of these of concern to the US?
We are not at risk in either case, unless we choose to put ourselves at risk. Let the belligerents sort it out themselves.
If you can't actually end wars, just pretend that they're not happening.
Which works for as long as the population is not involved in those wars. That was the purpose of ending conscription. So you need not ever end any wars. Just need to finance them and that's a breeze.
None of this debate stuff matters. All voters have to do is remember what it was like with Trump and what it's been like since then. Harris says we don't want to go back? Yes, we do!
Kamala doesn’t need a plan to end anything. She’s got a mainstream press that’s jumping at the chance to act as her “Ministry of Truth” and a voting constituency who still believe that the prison at Gitmo was closed in 2009 and that the “kids in cages” camps weren’t actually built 2014 (and definitely weren’t re-opened in 2022).
If she simply says that the conflict between Israel and the Arab world is over, her supporters will believe it, despite the fact that it’ll exist until either the State of Israel or the Iranian Theocracy ceases to be.
If she says that Ukraine has achieved total victory over Russia, her supporters will believe it, even if it’s part of a joint presser with Vladamir Putin broadcast from a Russian Navy base in Odessa.
For them, what The Party says is the Truth, and if the facts disagree, they need to disappear (and it’s now “appropriate” to censor that kind of “malinformation” at the request of the State.
The plan should be to stop using war as a political tool, both for domestic politics AND as the self-appointed "world cop." Making the world safe for democracy - FAIL! Global war on terrorism - MASSIVE FAIL!!
Why is it always the US's job to make people who hate each other and want to go to war and kill each other, the US's job to stop them? Is India kicking in? No? Is Russia? No, their busy. Hey China where are you? Maybe its time to pull back and let the commies eat each other... and before you say it's not that simple. It is that simple. Collectivists versus free people.