Body of Article:
In recent years, the United States’ perspectives on military strength have experienced twists and turns owing to the messaging and policies of two significant players in its political landscape: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, and Harris, the current Vice President, have both applied unique approaches to this national security aspect, mirroring their respective political ideologies.
Donald Trump has been renowned for his America First policy approach, which extends to the handling of the country’s military. During his term from January 20, 2017, to January 20, 2021, Trump proposed expansive increases in military spending, promising to build a defense system “second to none.” He argued that his robust approach to defense would deter threats and ensure national security.
Trump’s modus operandi involved modernizing the country’s nuclear arsenal and bolstering its conventional military strength. He promised to increase the size of the armed forces by adding more soldiers and new equipment. Descriptively, he envisioned a naval force of over 350 ships (compared to the actual fleet size of around 290), a modernization plan for missile defenses, and substantial investments into the latest military technology. This bold vision was seen as an attempt to cater to his conservative base’s demands for a formidable military posture.
On the other side of the political spectrum, Vice President Kamala Harris has been perceived as advocating for a more nuanced view of military power. While she agrees that maintaining a robust military is vital for the national defense, her approach emphasizes diplomacy and alliance strength, notably underlining the importance of a comprehensive international strategy for maintaining global peace.
Harris also has shown her commitment to supporting the military personnel, advocating for increased pay for servicemen and servicewomen, and emphasizing the importance of mental health care for veterans. Her stand is based on the belief that the military’s strength not only stems from robust military hardware but also the welfare and motivation of the people who serve.
Another distinguishing factor in Harris’ approach is her insistence on developing cybersecurity. Recognizing the evolving nature of warfare, she argues for a strong focus on cybersecurity threats alongside traditional military power. Harris further states that investing in cybersecurity would effectively deter cyber warfare, thereby contributing to the nation’s overall defense strategy.
Strains of disparity between Trump and Harris extend to the handling of alliances and international bodies. Whereas Trump preferred a unilateral approach and criticized international organizations like NATO, Harris underscores the significance of strengthening international alliances and multilateralism. Harris believes that the United States’ strength lies in its ability to work with its allies, fostering stronger relationships, and forging collective defense strategies.
Both these perspectives represent two distinct philosophies toward achieving military prowess. Trump’s preference for a maximalist, hardware-focused approach reflects a traditional view of military power, while Harris’s integration of diplomacy, alliance coordination, and cybersecurity exhibits an understanding of the complexities of modern geopolitical dynamics.
In summary, while Donald Trump both promised and attempted far-reaching increases in military spending to ensure domestic safety and international deterrence, Kamala Harris advocates for a more multifaceted approach that involves not only a strong military but also a robust diplomatic stance and digital defense. Their differing philosophies reflect the broader divides within the American political landscape, illustrating how different interpretations of strength can shape national security policy.