Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

A general view shows destruction in the Kalasa neighbourhood of the northern Syrian city of Aleppo on Oct. 28, 2014 as reported strikes by government forces continue to batter the city. (Photo: Karam al-Masri/AFP/Getty Images)

There Is No Republican Mandate for More War

Robert Naiman

Quite predictably, some pundits in big media are spinning the Republican takeover of the Senate as telling us that America wants President Obama's policies to be more Republican, whatever that might mean. Some of these voices are now going to demand that President Obama should do whatever Republicans say he should do on the budget and taxes, immigration and energy, trade and foreign policy, because of the election.

I will leave to others the question of whether there is a new Republican Mandate to cut Social Security benefits, or to deport more undocumented Americans who have committed no crime in the United States, or to block efforts to curb U.S. carbon emissions in order to do our share to protect the climate, or to ram through more secretive trade agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, that increase corporate power at the expense of public interests like labor rights, environmental protection, and access to essential medicines.

I will limit myself to this: there is no Republican mandate for more war.

It's true that some Republican candidates tried to use the "ISIS crisis" to portray Democrats as "weak on national security." But these Republicans haven't yet been forced to put forward and defend any specific "more aggressive" alternative policy in the court of public opinion. It's one thing to say that you think the President is doing a bad job confronting ISIS. It's quite another to be forced to say what exactly you would do differently.

Do these Republicans want to see U.S. ground troops engaged in combat against ISIS in Iraq and Syria? If so, let them say so on the record; let them introduce and vote for an authorization of force for Iraq and Syria that includes the use of ground combat troops.

Do these Republicans want to see the U.S. expand its bombing targets in Syria from ISIS and Nusra to include the military forces of the Syrian government? If so, let them say so on the record; let them introduce and vote for an authorization of force for Iraq and Syria that includes targeting the military forces of the Syrian government.

Do these Republicans want to see the U.S. engage in military action in Iraq and Syria indefinitely? If so, let them say so on the record; let them introduce and vote for an authorization of force for Iraq and Syria that includes no time limit.

Do these Republicans want to scuttle any diplomatic agreement with Iran on curtailing its nuclear program, setting the U.S. on the path to yet another Middle East war? If so, let them say so on the record; let them say openly in front of the American people that they prefer war with Iran to a negotiated agreement on constraining Iran's nuclear program.

The best way to thwart big media spin that Republicans have a mandate for more war is to force Republicans onto the record on whether they support or oppose specific "more war" policies where the American people can see it.

That's why it's crucial that Congress debate and vote on a sustained combat role for U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria, including whether that role should include combat troops, and who should be targeted.

That's why it's crucial that key Democrats speak up in favor of a negotiated agreement to constrain Iran's nuclear program - to force Republicans to say whether they support a negotiated agreement or not, and if not, to say whether their proposed alternative is more war.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman

Robert Naiman

Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East. You can contact him here.

This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news site. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Simply Don't Exist.

'A Deal's a Deal': Progressive Leader Holds Strong on $3.5 Trillion Social Investment Plan

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal says around 60 Democrats are willing to vote down a weaker bipartisan bill if the more sweeping reconciliation bill does not come first.

Jon Queally ·

Critics Fume as ICC Excludes US From Probe Into Afghan War Crimes

"Allowing powerful states to get away with multi-year, multi-continent torture against so many feeds impunity for all."

Andrea Germanos ·

Social Democrats, Greens Eye Coalition After Outgoing Merkel's Bloc Ousted in German Elections

Citing the need to act on the climate crisis, center-left SPD leader Olaf Scholz declared that "voters have clearly spoken."

Jon Queally ·

Trump's CIA Considered Kidnapping or Assassinating Assange: Report

"The Biden administration must drop its charges against Assange immediately."

Jake Johnson ·

'Carrying Water for Big Corporations': Sinema Faces Backlash for Opposing Tax Hikes

"Make no mistake, if she sides with her wealthy donors and kills popular investments to jump-start the economy, everyday families—including across Arizona—will pay the price."

Jake Johnson ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.

Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo