issue: Foreign Policy & Defense

GOP’s Budget-Busting Defense and Tax Proposals Are Incompatible

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

Last week, Senator Roger Wicker, the GOP ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, called for increasing U.S. defense spending from roughly 3% to 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) over the next five to seven years to prepare for increased geopolitical tensions with Russia, China, and Iran. That would require at least $5 trillion in new federal spending over the next decade, for which Senator Wicker offers no offsets.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans also want to spend an additional $4 trillion over the next decade to extend the Trump 2017 tax cuts, most of which are currently set to expire in 2026. Even if there were national security merits to Senator Wicker’s proposal, Republicans have offered the country no explanation for how they intend to finance $9 trillion in spending, which would reverse the $1.5 trillion of savings they secured in last year’s Fiscal Responsibility Act several times over. By comparison, the most recent Biden budget proposed $4.1 trillion in new spending over the next decade, and much of that was offset by proposed tax increases.

Wicker’s plans for a dramatic ramp-up of defense spending were swiftly endorsed by Mitch McConnell and several other prominent Republicans. However, the proposal does not spell out a clear strategic rationale for such a high defense target. In an op-ed defending the proposal, Wicker cites the unfunded priorities lists annually requested by the Pentagon as one justification for this increase. However, the spending increase that would be required to fully fund all these priorities is less than one-tenth of what Wicker is calling for. Moreover, there is clearly some room for the Pentagon to pay for these priorities by spending smarter rather than spending more. The Inspector General’s Office, the Government Accountability Office, and the Defense Business Board have all suggested that smarter procurement and personnel decisions could save money with few negative consequences for military readiness.

But if our country faces threats dire enough to justify this new spending, you’d expect a party that has repeatedly threatened to crash the economy in the name of “fiscal discipline” to come up with ways to pay for it. Yet Republicans have instead chosen to do the opposite, calling for even more tax cuts for affluent Americans by making their 2017 tax bill, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), permanent. Although TCJA made some positive changes to simplify the individual tax code that are worth extending, it also lavished almost two-thirds of the overall benefits on the top fifth of income earners. And contrary to GOP claims that the law would pay for itself, even sympathetic estimates say only about 14% of the total cost is estimated to be recouped through faster economic growth.

America cannot afford the GOP’s reckless spending proposals. The federal government spent $2 trillion more than it raised in revenue last year — a deficit that cannot be justified at a time of strong economic growth and record-low unemployment rates. Interest costs as a percent of GDP are now higher than at any other point in American history, and they are projected to more than double over the next 30 years even if current law remains unchanged. If this growth continues unchecked, interest costs will begin to crowd out other important priorities, including national defense. This scenario is hardly hypothetical, as interest payments on the debt eclipsed defense spending for the first time last year. If the GOP truly wanted to ensure military readiness, they would ensure that defense spending is sustainable rather than pitch unrealistic spending surges.

Ultimately, these GOP proposals highlight how unserious their party is on improving the nation’s fiscal outlook. Despite their routine demonization of fiscal proposals from the other side of the aisle, they fail to recognize the complete incompatibility and hypocrisy of their own $9 trillion priorities. Republicans want to spend now and pay later — by sticking young Americans with the bill. Policymakers in Congress and the Administration should be having a serious dialogue about what is necessary to correct the nation’s fiscal trajectory, not making it worse.

Jacoby for Liberal Europe Podcast: The Future of Ukraine

Posted on by Max Sherrill

In this episode of the Liberal Europe Podcast, Ricardo Silvestre (Movimento Liberal Social) welcomes Tamar Jacoby, from the Progressive Policy Institute, former journalist and author, now living in Ukraine where she reports on the war and the work done by the government and civil society to modernize and make Ukraine a more liberal democratic country.

European Liberal Forum · Ep189 The future of Ukraine with Tamar Jacoby

Jacoby for the Los Angeles Times: Every day is Memorial Day in Ukraine

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tamar Jacoby

It looks like a video shot with a phone from an apartment window. The camera pans a line of cars stopped on the roadway below, and it takes a minute to understand what we’re looking at.

Then a cortege comes into view: about 50 people walking slowly behind a coffin draped with the Ukrainian flag. When the shot widens, we see that traffic traveling in the other direction on the eight-lane road has come to a halt, and people have gotten out of their cars. A few are standing solemnly as the funeral passes; most are kneeling on the asphalt, heads bowed in respect.

By the time I see the social media post, “The funeral of a fallen defender in Kyiv today,” nearly a thousand viewers have reacted with comments or emojis. Among the most common: Heroyam slava — glory to the heroes.

Memorial Day in the U.S. was set aside to honor those who fell in the Civil War. Now Americans play “Taps” and put flowers on graves of those who died in many wars, all in the past. Here in Ukraine, people can only dream of the day when the flag-draped funerals have ended and battles are distant memories commemorated by a nation at peace.

Keep reading in the Los Angeles Times.

Johnson for American Purpose: Caring Isn’t Enough

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Jeremiah Johnson

Over the past few weeks, campus protests focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have received an inordinate amount of media attention. Images of the protests, news of university actions (or lack of action) against the protests, and debates about their legitimacy have been front-page news. And yet for all the breathless coverage, one thing seems to be missing: an explanation why any of this matters at all.

You may say that these events matter to the colleges impacted or to America’s domestic politics. But the protests are nominally about what’s happening in Gaza. And there’s very little reporting on how any of the protestors plan to make a difference there.

The truth is that they’re not going to make any difference to those enduring the conflict whatsoever. Furthermore, it’s not even clear whether the protestors realize that is supposed to be the goal. Helping Palestinians in Gaza no longer seems to be the point. It’s certainly worthwhile for college students to care about injustice in the world. But caring isn’t enough.

Read more in American Purpose.

Jacoby for New York Post: The new $61B aid package for Ukraine is merely a good start

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tamar Jacoby

KYIV — I was elated on Saturday night as I watched the House of Representatives wrap up its vote on a $61 billion aid package for Ukraine.

Even six months after President Biden proposed the increased aid, bringing the bill up for a vote took historic courage and leadership from House Speaker Mike Johnson, who could still lose his job for defying the will of the majority of House Republicans who oppose aid.

But here in Ukraine, the reaction has been surprisingly muted.

The weaponry likely to flow in coming weeks will be essential on the battlefield and in cities across the country, where Russian air attacks have intensified sharply in recent weeks.

It should start to stabilize the front in eastern and southern Ukraine, where Moscow is currently poised to break through, and help Ukrainians shore up their defenses in anticipation of the Russian thrust that many expect in coming months as spring sunshine hardens the muddy ground between the two armies.

What the package is unlikely to do is enable Kyiv to go on the offensive, turning the tide of the war and positioning Ukraine to win.

Keep reading in New York Post.

Marshall for The Hill: Why Putin needs Trump to win

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Will Marshall

In Ukraine, the fickle fortunes of war have turned in Russia’s favor. The invaders have seized the military initiative, while a Trumpified Republican Party has thrown in doubt both America’s commitment to a free Ukraine and our will to confront a new Russian imperialism.

For the moment, however, GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has managed to unsnag more than $60 billion in long-stalled U.S. military aid that Ukraine desperately needs to defend itself against a Russian summer offensive.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently confirmed Moscow’s plan to seize Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city. Exploiting their advantages in manpower and missiles, willingness to take casualties and Ukraine’s dire shortage of artillery shells, Russian forces lately have made significant if costly advances near Bakhmut, Avdiivka and Donetsk City.

Although I’m loathe to praise any 2020 election denier, Speaker Johnson acted patriotically, if belatedly, in bringing the aid package to the House floor and passing it with Democratic help.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: As Ukraine Struggles, Fears of Russian Aggression Soar in Poland

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tamar Jacoby

The West has been speculating about the size of Vladimir Putin’s appetite since Russian troops began massing on the Ukrainian border in early 2022, with many predicting even then that the war would spill over into Central Europe. But the situation on the ground has changed in recent months. “It’s one thing to speculate and make plans in theory,” a Polish government official told our group. “It’s very different when you’re actually facing a threat.” Now, more than two years into the war, with Russia poised to break through in Ukraine and international support for Kyiv flagging, many in Poland are actively preparing for war.

Poland’s predicament starts with its all-too-familiar geography. An overwhelmingly Catholic nation of 41 million people, it sits at a bloody crossroads—what a member of parliament called “our cursed position on the map of Europe between Russia and Germany.” Much of Poland, he reminded us, including Warsaw, was part of Russia from 1795 until 1918, and the Soviet Union dominated it for most of the second half of the 20th century. Poles and Ukrainians have often found themselves on the same side of history. But the relationship fragmented during and after World War II, when ethnic tensions erupted in the massacre of some 100,000 Poles and communist authorities moved more than a million Poles and Ukrainians from one side of the border to the other.

After Putin invaded Ukraine, Poland emerged as one of Kyiv’s best friends in Europe. In the first months of the war, it welcomed over 3.5 million refugees, and hundreds of thousands of Polish families took Ukrainians into their homes. Polish President Andrzej Duda was among the first foreign leaders to visit wartime Kyiv. Warsaw began sending materiel to Ukraine—first tanks, then helicopters and fighter jets taken directly from its own active-duty units.

Keep reading in Washington Monthly.

Jacoby for The Bulwark: MAGA Isolationists, in Their Own Words

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tamar Jacoby

I’D BEEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND the rationale for months: Why is MAGA America so opposed to U.S. support for the war in Ukraine?

At first, I thought I’d find the answer in foreign policy magazines and journals. I started reading about the history of American isolationism and parsing the speeches of politicians like Senators J.D. Vance and Lindsey Graham. I even thought I might write a journal article myself, analyzing and refuting these wrongheaded but reasonable-sounding arguments.

But all along something told me that I was barking up the wrong tree. The GOP base voters I encountered seemed so bitterly angry and so dug in—there had to be something beyond rational arguments about fiscal conservatism and comparative assessments of Chinese and Russian threats.

Then, a few weeks ago, I stumbled on a video that took my breath away. A reporter had gone to a Trump rally and wandered among the crowd asking people how they’d feel if Russia won the war, destroying Kyiv and wiping Ukraine off the map. One woman made clear she had no objection to the invasion or the killing of Ukrainians: “That’s fine,” she asserted truculently. “That’s fine with me.” An older man whose hat read “Vietnam Veteran” agreed: “I don’t think Putin’s the problem. I think Zelensky’s the problem. . . . Putin is trying to save his country from the likes of idiots like Zelensky and the elitists.” Another man in line outside the rally drove the point home: “This [Biden] administration’s trying to start a war with Russia. Russia’s not our enemy.”

What else was hiding under the rock, I wondered, and at first I was afraid to look. But then I spent a few days on Truth Social and other far-right sites. I did no systematic research—just an informal canvas of the MAGA mind. But I’ve come away far more scared than I was before about what might lie ahead for U.S. foreign policy.

Keep reading in The Bulwark.

Ainsley for The Liberal Patriot: Britain Faces Fallout from War in the Holy Land

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Claire Ainsley

The conflict in Gaza is still making daily news headlines in the UK, five months on from the Hamas atrocities of October 7. Widespread condemnation of Hamas’ horrific actions and initial political backing for Israel’s right to defend itself has been followed by political and public unease at the extent of civilian casualties in Gaza.

Public concern about the conflict is growing rather than abating, fueled by the death toll of an estimated 29,000 Palestinians, harrowing personal stories brought to our screens by international reporters, and the continuing failure by Hamas to release Israeli hostages. Journalists from a wide spectrum of news outlets, including some of the UK’s most respected correspondents, are pressing Israel for access to report freely from Gaza beyond the controlled media trips authorized by the Israel government. The denial of free press access does not ease these concerns.

As in the U.S. and around the world, in the UK there was sincere revulsion at the crimes of Hamas against the Israelis on the October 7. The brutal nature of the attacks shocked Brits, and the plight of hostages and their families continues to be covered by the news media. Condemnation of Hamas’ actions echoed right across the political spectrum, and messages of “I stand with Israel” poured out from the public. Despite near-unity amongst the political parties that Israel has the right to defend itself, however, this sympathy hasn’t translated into clear public support for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

Keep reading in The Liberal Patriot.

 

New Eastern Europe: Interview with Tamar Jacoby

Posted on by Alyssa Brown

“Nations that do things out of self-interest are much stronger allies than nations that act out of sympathy”

Interview with Tamar Jacoby, the director of the Progressive Policy Institute’s New Ukraine Project. Interviewer: Iwona Reichardt.

IWONA REICHARDT: Looking at the near future regarding US politics and policy towards Ukraine, what can we expect in your view?

TAMAR JACOBY: I am still modestly hopeful that the US Congress will pass the aid package that has been pending since last October, although they might not pass the whole package. It has already passed the Senate by a resounding margin, bigger than anyone expected. But the House of Representatives is going to be a much tougher setting. The current belief in Washington is that military aid for Ukraine could pass but not economic aid. This might not be what Ukraine wants, but it will still be important – what Kyiv needs most from the US right now is military aid. At the same time, I fear that even if it passes, this will be the last American package for Ukraine. American support for Ukraine has been eroding for two years, since the full-scale invasion. It used to be 60, 70 or even 80 per cent; but we are now down to the 50 or 60 per cent support. If Donald Trump is re-elected, I fear that American aid will be cut off entirely. But even without a President Trump, I fear that American interest and concern and attention for the war is flagging. The good news is that Europe is stepping up to fill this gap, so the timing could be okay. We have also recently been alarmed by news about Russian nuclear weapons in space, so maybe some Americans will wake up.

For the full interview, read more here. 

Marshall for The Hill: Palestinian leadership and dangerous illusions breed endless war

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Will Marshall

In purely military terms, Israel is winning its war against Hamas. Its forces have driven Hamas fighters out of much of north and central Gaza, killing at least 10,000 while losing fewer than 300 Israeli troops.

But the war is taking a horrendous toll on civilians. It has killed more than 29,000 Palestinians, wounded nearly 70,000 and reduced much of northern Gaza to rubble. These figures come from Hamas-controlled public health officials and do not distinguish between civilians and combatants.

Over the protests of President Biden and European leaders, Israeli forces are preparing to assault Rafah, a city on Gaza’s southern border. Following Israel’s orders to evacuate, more than 1.4 million displaced civilians have fled there to escape the fighting in the north.

The plight of Palestinian civilians is eclipsing the global outrage that followed Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre of 1,200 Israelis and the taking of more than 250 hostages. This incenses many Israelis, who believe with reason that many Palestinians regard  Hamas’s orgy of murder, rape and kidnapping as a legitimate response to Israeli “occupation.”

Hamas uses civilians as human shields and profits politically from their deaths. The more Palestinian “martyrs” it feeds into the maw of war, the louder the international clamor for cease-fires and false accusations by Hamas apologists that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza.

Keep reading in The Hill.

Jacoby for Capital Tonight NC with Tim Boyum

Posted on by Max Sherrill

We’re now just 10 days out from the next Republican presidential primary. A new poll from Winthrop University is taking a look at the race.

The director of Winthrop’s Center for Public Opinion and Policy Research, Dr. Scott Huffmon, joins with more.

Meanwhile, Congress continues to face roadblocks in passing an aid package for Ukraine.

Tamar Jacoby is the director of the Progressive Policy Institute’s New Ukraine Project and currently lives in Kyiv. She joins virtually with more.

Watch the interview here.

Jacoby for The Bulwark: America’s Fleeting Chance to Resume Leadership

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tamar Jacoby

SENATORS, BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS, made an important start yesterday when they voted 67 to 32 to advance legislation that would free up $95 billion in military and humanitarian aid for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. It was, to be sure, just a preliminary, procedural vote. The Senate still needs to pass the bill, and even then it faces long odds in the House of Representatives. But the Senate vote was an overdue step to stop the disastrous downhill slide in American power and influence in the world. The United States faces a choice: to resume its role as what Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called the “indispensable nation,” or to sit by and watch the world become more dangerous for us and our allies.

Opinions vary on when American global leadership began to wane. Some will point to the Vietnam era; others to the post-9/11 wars; still others to the Obama administration’s effort to “lead from behind.” Then there was Donald Trump’s “America first” approach, which actually meant “America alone.”

President Joe Biden got off on the wrong foot on foreign policy in 2021. Even those who felt it made sense to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan can now agree it was done too abruptly, leaving our Afghan allies at the mercy of a Taliban takeover. But then in 2022, the president changed course. Through 2022 and into 2023, the United States took the lead, inspiring and encouraging the world to support Ukraine as it fought off Vladimir Putin’s brutal, unprovoked invasion. Washington got the ball rolling with military aid and intelligence sharing, and soon our allies in Europe and elsewhere were following suit.

Keep reading in The Bulwark.

Jacoby for Washington Monthly: How Ukranians Are Dealing with Republicans Dithering Over Military Aid

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Tamar Jacoby

Ukrainians reacted with surprising equanimity last week when Donald Trump all but clinched the Republican nomination for president by winning the New Hampshire primary. Most mainstream media outlets here in Kyiv treated the looming possibility of the 45th president’s return to office as a second-tier story, despite his hostility to Ukraine’s war for survival and his determination to scuttle a U.S. border security deal that would pave the way for $61 billion in aid to Kyiv. The Telegram channels where most Ukrainians get their news hardly seemed to notice his victory over former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, a fervent advocate of aid to Kyiv. There were no screaming headlines, angry political speeches, or sardonic commentary by Telegram subscribers.

The Trump victory comes at a dark time for Ukraine: stalled fighting in the country’s southern and eastern regions, intensifying Russian missile strikes, growing fears that Ukrainian fighters—those on the front lines and those defending civilians against air attacks—are running out of ammunition. Kyiv depends on Washington—more than $75 billion has flowed here since February 2022, when Vladimir Putin invaded in full force. (Russian forces have controlled Crimea since 2014.) The outcome of this week’s debate on Capitol Hill is as important for Ukraine’s future as anything that happens on the battlefield.

Keep reading in Washington Monthly.

Marshall for The Hill: Progressives turn a blind eye to Houthi terrorism to criticize US retaliation

Posted on by Max Sherrill

By Will Marshall

As a U.S.-led coalition steps up airstrikes to suppress Houthi attacks on international shipping, progressives are accusing President Biden of going back on his promise to keep America out of “forever wars” in the Middle East.

It’s a bum rap that confuses cause and effect. What’s the greater evil, an outbreak of maritime terrorism or the United States using force to stop it? On the left, the habit of blaming America first dies hard.

Biden is walking a tightrope between a U.S. public leery of being dragged back into the region’s endemic violence by the Israel-Hamas war, and Houthi attacks that are disrupting routes where about 12 percent of global trade passes through.

Americans don’t relish open-ended military engagements anywhere, but our enemies get a vote, too. Today’s Middle East landscape is littered with Iran-backed jihadist groups who see themselves as waging a Holy War to erase Israel from the map. They know they can’t do that without driving the United States from the region.

Read more in The Hill.