Foreign policy differences among 2020 Dems

[Mr. Morden]

We’ve had plenty of discussion here about Tulsi Gabbard’s foreign policy eccentricities, but what about, e.g., Booker, Warren, Gillibrand, O’Malley, etc., particularly with respect to issues related to US use of force or US support for military operations by other actors?  E.g., what did these folks think about US force in Libya and Syria, or the US arming of Ukraine or arming of Syrian rebels?  Most of the 2020ers weren’t in Congress yet at the time that the Iraq War started, but did any of those who weren’t there yet take a public position at the time?  And what about later developments in Iraq and Afghanistan?

A few tidbits….

The New Republic has this story from 2014 about how Warren rarely ever talks about foreign policy:

https://newrepublic.com/article/119965/elizabeth-warrens-foreign-policy-positions-are-mystery

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In that same vein, here’s a story on the 22 Senators who voted against Obama’s plan to “arm and train moderate Syrian rebels”:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/senators-voted-against-funding-syrian-rebels-against-isis

This list includes Warren, Gillibrand, Murphy, and Brown.  Booker and Klobuchar aren’t mentioned, so I assume they voted for it.

Here’s a story from a year later, in which Gillibrand criticizes Obama’s Syria strategy:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sen-gillibrand-obamas-syria-strategy-wont-work-long-term/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This contrasts with Klobuchar’s support (first expressed back in 2013) for a “limited” Syria no-fly zone:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=174906.0

Also, it looks like Booker did some flip-flopping on Syria back in 2013, during the whole “red line” debate about whether the Assad government itself should be attacked:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/cory-booker-walks-back-opposition-to-military-intervention-i?utm_term=.nc0E7R9kb#.ntLPMw725

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Would also be curious to see what these folks were saying about the Libya intervention in 2011.  Booker and Warren weren’t in the Senate yet, but maybe the others commented on it at the time.

[Mr. Morden]

The 2020 dems will likewise also take the same standard establishment FP position as Hillary et. al did back in 2008.

The 2020 Dem. field largely consists of people who don't want to talk about foreign policy.  As I said above, Warren mentions it as little as possible, and Gillibrand spent all her time questioning Mattis in his confirmation hearing asking questions about topics like sexual assault in the military.  (Which is certainly an important topic.  I'm just saying that she focuses more on that than on foreign policy issues.)

*However*, I don't agree that they all take the "same standard establishment FP position" as Hillary et al.  As noted in the OP, there are divisions among them.  E.g., Hillary Clinton wanted to go farther than Obama did in Syria, by setting up a no-fly zone for example.  And Amy Klobuchar agreed with her.  Gillibrand OTOH suggested that Obama was doing too much in Syria, and advocated pulling back.  Booker and Klobuchar voted to arm Syrian rebels, while Gillibrand, Warren, and others voted against it.

[Mr. Morden]

I know that Warren is surprisingly hawkish on Israel.

She's dialed that back in the last couple of years.  She was one of only 8 Senators to boycott Netanyahu's speech to Congress.  There was also this letter on Palestinian participation in the ICC that was signed by 75 Senators (including Booker, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar), which was not signed by either Warren or Sanders:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/1/30/1361281/-75-Senators-Sign-Letter-to-Kerry-Defending-Israeli-War-Crimes-Demanding-More-Palestinian-Suffering

And while Booker, Gillibrand, and many other Dems criticized Obama on the UN resolution on Israel in December, Warren was silent on it.

[Mr. Morden]

It’s funny because people are often talking about Gillibrand as “Hillary Jr.”  But Clinton’s White House strategy in the 2000s was to be as tough as possible.  Throw herself into the national security issue, and outflank any Democratic challenger with her hawkishness to erase any assumption grounded in gender stereotypes that she wasn’t tough enough for the job.  In the end, she ended up to the right of much of the Democratic elite on issues of war and peace, seemingly always pushing a more hawkish line than what Obama was comfortable with.

Gillibrand, while hawkish on Israel, has ended up being somewhat more dovish than the Democratic foreign policy elite (including Obama) on at least Syria, and focuses more of her time on the Armed Services Committee talking about sexual assault in the military.  (Which, again, I don’t want to minimize that as an issue.  I just think that it’s an interesting contrast with Clinton in the 2000s.  Gillibrand isn't fearful of being pigeonholed by gender stereotypes, and in fact spends much of her energy on so-called "women's issues".)

Though, as with other issues, Gillibrand may have moved left since her appointment to the Senate in 2009.  Back in 2007, when she was in the House, for example, she was part of a minority of Dems (albeit a large minority) to side with Republicans on continued funding for the Iraq War without a withdrawal deadline:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll425.xml
link

Also, here’s a story on the Minnesota delegation and the Iraq War:

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/03/minnesota-senators-no-votes-iraq-war-and-other-10th-anniversary-thoughts

Neither Franken nor Klobuchar were in Washington yet when the war started.  Both of them ran as critics of the war in their Senate campaigns, and Klobuchar claims that she was against it from the beginning (though she was just a lawyer at the time, so there’s no public record of her commenting on the war before it started).  Franken though seemed to be a lukewarm supporter of the war at first:

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2008/08/coleman-and-franken-iraq-everything-you-need-know

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

In that same vein, here’s a story on the 22 Senators who voted against Obama’s plan to “arm and train moderate Syrian rebels”:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/senators-voted-against-funding-syrian-rebels-against-isis

This list includes Warren, Gillibrand, Murphy, and Brown.  Booker and Klobuchar aren’t mentioned, so I assume they voted for it.

Chris Murphy also voted against arming and training the Syrian rebels.  Here’s his statement on that:

https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-statement-on-decision-to-vote-against-arming-and-training-syrian-rebels

In 2015, he co-sponsored a bill (with Udall and Lee) to prohibit the use of any funds “on military and covert activities that would escalate U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war”:

https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/with-announcement-of-us-ground-troops-to-syria-murphy-udall-lee-re-introduce-bill-to-block-military-arms-to-syrian-rebels

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He was also one of two Dems on the Foreign Relations Committee to vote no on authorizing force against the Assad regime over chemical weapons in 2013 (it never got to the Senate floor, so only those on the committee have a recorded vote on this):

http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-senate-approves-syria-resolution-authorizing-military-action/

Oh, and while in the House in 2011, he joined with about 80 House Dems in signing a letter to Obama calling on him to end the war in Afghanistan ASAP:

http://ctmirror.org/2011/03/23/murphy-and-other-house-dems-obama-dont-forget-about-ending-war/

[Mr. Morden]

Here are some “isidewith” foreign policy answers on some of the 2020ers in the Senate.  (None of the answers quoted as “you” were actually given by me.  I just found these pages with Google):

https://www.isidewith.com/massachusetts-senate/356979325/issues/foreign-policy
https://www.isidewith.com/minnesota-senate/198752991/issues/foreign-policy
https://www.isidewith.com/new-york-senate/183642275/issues/foreign-policy
https://www.isidewith.com/candidate-guide/bernie-sanders/foreign-policy

[Mr. Morden]

In December, 27 Senators (15 Dems and 12 Republicans) wrote a letter to then-president-elect Trump to “call for increased political, economic, and military support for Ukraine”:

http://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=A7ECFC89-6512-4488-B424-28AAEE20FB69

Brown, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Merkley, and Murphy all signed it.  Booker, Sanders, and Warren did not.

[Mr. Morden]

Looking up the info for this thread has definitely given me a somewhat clearer picture of where these guys are on foreign policy.  One thing that's clear is that this is *not* like the early 2000s, when virtually every ambitious Dem. establishment candidate felt the need to be a hawk not just on Afghanistan, but on Iraq.  Most of the 2020 Dems don't care much about foreign policy.

Most of them entered Congress at about the time Obama became president, if not later, so most of them have largely gone along with Obama's foreign policy, but there are differences here and there, including a move by some of them to get to the "left" of Obama on Syria.  E.g., while Klobuchar and Gillibrand are both "establishment", Klobuchar definitely seems to be the more hawkish of the two, except on Israel.

I should do a cheat sheet, giving them all hawk-or-dove ratings on Libya, Syria, Israel, and Russia.  Not today though.

[Mr. Morden]

*bump*

Chris Murphy has a new piece in the Hartford Courant titled “Trump is getting us into war”:

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-sen-murphy-trump-is-dragging-us-into-war-20170326-story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Murphy does actually seem to be interested in foreign policy, unlike most of the other 2020ers (e.g., Booker, Gillibrand, Sanders, and Warren).  I mean, Booker and Warren and the others do take the conventional view that sitting on either the Armed Services or Foreign Relations committee can be a shortcut to getting some national security cred, but I haven’t gotten the sense that they are using those perches to dive into foreign policy, as such.

[Mr. Morden]

Earlier this week, Sherrod Brown offered this (non-binding) resolution in the Senate, which condemns Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and calls for sanctions on Russia to continue until there is some kind of settlement that the government of Ukraine agrees to:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-resolution/100/text

There are 15 co-sponsors: 8 Dems and 7 Republicans.  The only one of the 8 Democratic co-sponsors who’s also a likely 2020 possibility is Klobuchar.

[Mr. Morden]

Here’s another foreign policy issue: Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

In September, the Senate voted 71-27 (Kaine and Thune didn’t vote) to dismiss a bill that would block a $1 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia.  The 27 votes to block the sale included only 4 Republicans (Heller, Kirk, Lee, and Paul), so the Dems were split just about 50/50 on this issue.

Brown and Merkley were both among the Dems who voted with the Republicans to let the sale go through, while Booker, Franken, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Murphy, Sanders, and Warren all voted to block the sale.

The sponsors of the bill to block the sale were Franken, Murphy, Paul, and Lee.

Aside from this one time vote on this particular bill, I tried looking up where the various candidates stand on US support for the Saudi military campaign in Yemen, but as I mention upthread, most of the 2020 Dem. candidates hardly ever talk about foreign policy.  I did find this letter that Warren sent in response to a constituent who asked her about it, but she basically just talks in circles without really addressing the US support for Saudi airstrikes (she just goes as far as saying that she “supports US efforts…to secure a cessation of hostilities”):

https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-25/will-us-stop-arming-saudi-attackers-yemen-elizabeth-warren-responds-sort



The one potential 2020 candidate who stands out on this is Murphy.  Because, like I said upthread, he actually talks about foreign policy quite a bit, and he actually deviated from Obama on foreign policy on multiple occasions.  He rather unambiguously said that the US should withhold all support for the Saudis in Yemen.  E.g.:

https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-us-must-end-support-for-disastrous-saudi-bombing-campaign-in-yemen-

Also, on the recent chemical weapons attack in Syria, Murphy was one of the few 2020 Dems to comment on it at all (even though several of the others are also on either the Armed Services or Foreign Relations committees):

https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/849327411628052482
https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/849638367595610113

[Mr. Morden]

Post any reaction to the Syria bombing by 2020 Dems here.

[Mr. Morden]

Warren’s statement:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/04/06/elizabeth-warren-should-not-escalate-this-conflict-without-clear-goals/saGa4OqfgFq4bR4q2HefhI/story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And here’s Tulsi Gabbard:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327743-dem-rep-us-attack-on-syrian-airfield-short-sighted-reckless

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

While he's not a Democrat, Amash is a potential primary challenger to Trump, so I'll throw in his response too:

https://www.facebook.com/justinamash/posts/1374493305923405

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, like Murphy and Warren, he's critical of Trump doing this without Congressional approval, without actually commenting on the wisdom of the underlying act.

The rest of the 2020 field is rather slow to respond to this.  Will any of them, other than Gabbard, actually comment on whether the underlying action is a good idea or not, separate from the question of whether he should have gotten Congressional approval first?

[Mr. Morden]

Booker puts out a statement….which again, like statements from other Dems, says that Trump needs to put forth a clear plan on Syria, but doesn’t actually say whether he thinks the attack was a good idea or not:

https://www.booker.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=576

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still radio silence from Gillibrand, Sanders, Klobuchar, and Harris, as far as I can tell.

O'Malley's town hall in South Carolina is tomorrow, and someone should ask him about it there. 

[Mr. Morden]

The full Senate will be briefed this afternoon by Dunford, so we’ll presumably be getting more reaction after that.  Meanwhile, here’s Klobuchar:

https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/850363187568545793

You must be logged in to read this quote.

“Using chemical weapons is an atrocity & that's why attack was on airbase.” sounds like she’s basically supportive.  As I said upthread, Klobuchar seems to be more or less the most hawkish of the 2020 Dems (except on Israel), as she was also calling for a no-fly zone in Syria a few years ago.

Here’s Sherrod Brown, who sounds supportive in principle, but has “questions”:

https://twitter.com/SenSherrodBrown/status/850357551644495872



And here’s Merkley:

https://www.merkley.senate.gov/news/press-releases/merkley-statement-on-us-strikes-in-syria



So, like many other Dems, is in favor of doing *something*, but seems non-committal on whether this particular action was a good idea or not.

[Mr. Morden]

Sanders is a skeptic.  He begins his statement talking about how awful Assad is, but then says this:

https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/posts/10155802467152908

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still haven’t seen anything from Gillibrand or Harris (or any of the 2020ers not in Congress).

[Mr. Morden]

Gillibrand and Harris have statements out now.

Gillibrand:

https://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/senator-gillibrand-statement-on-bombing-of-syrian-air-base

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, like so many of the others, she focuses on process, and is vague on the wisdom of the underlying decision to launch an attack.  Though she certainly sounds more skeptical of it than, say, Booker.

Harris:

https://twitter.com/SenKamalaHarris/status/850391964021383168



So Harris is similar to Booker (and some of the others) in being totally unclear on whether she thinks the underlying action is wise or not.  Yes, I get it that they all wanted Trump to consult with Congress.  But if he had consulted, would they think launching the attack was a good idea or not?  Most of these statements talk in circles around that question.

[Mr. Morden]

Following his pattern of not tweeting that much original content, but retweeting other people who he (presumably) agrees with, Julian Castro retweeted this guy:

https://twitter.com/YehudahMirsky/status/850344677249253376

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Expanding on her earlier comment, Klobuchar does an interview with Fox News in which she says that the attack was “the right thing to do”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIzukYOefCc&t=0m15s

She said the same thing in an interview with the BBC:

https://twitter.com/dmatmorrison/status/850374685997096962

[Mr. Morden]

Chris Murphy talks about the attack here, in this interview on MSNBC, sounding pretty skeptical (and calling the attack “illegal”):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T7N5_oXcpU

And more here:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-congress-syria-lawful

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Booker and Franken have a lengthy discussion about drug prices in this video:

https://www.facebook.com/corybooker/videos/vb.36872302227/10156712670852228/

But at the beginning of it (from about the 1 minute mark) they go on a tangent about Syria, in which Franken says that he agrees with Trump's decision to launch the attack, and that he also supported attacking Assad in 2013 over his use of chemical weapons back then as well.  So looks like the two Minnesota Senators are both at the hawkish end of this question.

Booker, meanwhile, doesn't really say anything substantive about the issue in said video, unless you count him criticizing Trump's refugee policy.  He doesn't seem to want to talk about the underlying question of whether the strike is a good idea or not.

[Mr. Morden]

538 compiles reactions in the Senate to the Syria attack here:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-clear-majority-of-senators-support-trumps-syria-airstrike/

Among potential 2020 candidates:

“Support with qualifications about next steps”:
Brown, Franken, Klobuchar

“Oppose”:
Gillibrand, Murphy

“No clear position with reservations about next steps”:
Booker, Harris, Merkley, Sanders, Warren

Hmmm…I agree on most of those, but I’d say that if you’re going to count Gillibrand’s statement as “oppose”, then the same would apply to Sanders.  Both of them are critical of the process, and sound pretty skeptical about the wisdom of this strike, but don’t explicitly say that a retaliatory strike against Assad for using chemical weapons is in principle a bad thing.  It’s more that the present circumstances make it (probably) a bad idea.  Murphy’s criticism is somewhat stronger, in that he’s casting it as a strategic mistake.  But I guess even that doesn’t go as far as the criticism from Gabbard, who says she’s not even sure if Assad was responsible for the chemical attack in the first place.

[Mr. Morden]

Warren came out with a new statement yesterday, which sounds more critical than her initial comments.  Though again, it doesn't go so far as to say that a retaliatory strike against Assad for using chemical weapons is in principle a mistake:

https://www.facebook.com/senatorelizabethwarren/posts/758818570947305

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Warren on the MOAB use in Afghanistan: "Where's the strategy?":

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/operations/328803-warren-demands-explanation-after-moab-strike