The GOP remains our hawkish party, at least in comparison to the Democrats.

Jason Willick argues that “on Israel and Ukraine, Harris and Trump are mirror images.” Here’s his case for that proposition:

Trump talks about the war in Eastern Europe in much the same way Harris talks about the war in the Middle East: As a tragic excess that should be wound down, not won. The U.S. interest, both candidates seem to believe, is in stopping a war involving an American ally — not in the American ally achieving its war objectives.

Willick is right. But there’s a key distinction between Trump’s position that the Ukraine-Russia war should be “wound down, not won” and Harris’ position that the Israel-Hamas war should be stopped — a distinction that Willick notes in passing near the end of his article.

In the case of Israel, our ally is winning the war. From a military standpoint, nothing stands between the IDF and the destruction of Hamas’ remaining brigades. Israeli troops are not being killed in large numbers and although Hezbollah is inflicting damage in the north of Israel, hardly any civilians are being killed.

Things are very different in Ukraine. Our ally is not winning that war. At best, the war is a stalemate. It might be more realistic to say that Ukraine is losing gradually.

Either way, Russia is killing Ukrainian troops at a rapid rate and far too many civilians, as well. It is destroying chunks of Ukraine’s infrastructure and inflicting much misery on the population.

Accordingly, it is far more reasonable for the U.S. to desire a cessation of hostilities in Ukraine than in Gaza. The former cessation might save our ally from defeat and would certainly save it from an enormous amount of carnage. The latter cessation would prevent our ally from accomplishing its goals in Gaza while saving Hamas from a crushing defeat.

In short, Trump’s position on Ukraine, while similar in form to Harris’ position on Israel, is far more reasonable.

That’s not to say that Trump’s position on Ukraine is correct. The virtue of settling the Ukraine-Russia war through negotiations depends on what kind of settlement could be negotiated.

Right now, with Russia seemingly having the upper hand, it’s difficult to see Putin settling for anything less than a considerable slice of Ukraine as it was constituted before the war began in 2022. Ukraine doesn’t want that settlement. Neither should the U.S.

Trump doesn’t seem to want it either. During his debate with Joe Biden (for those of you with long memories), Trump rejected Vladimir Putin’s position that to end the war, Ukraine must give up four regions. “Putin’s terms are not acceptable,” he said.

How does Trump propose to end the war in Ukraine? By using our ability to supply weapon (or withhold them) as leverage against both sides:

I would tell Zelensky, “No more. You got to make a deal.” I would tell Putin, “If you don’t make a deal, we’re going to give him a lot. We’re going to give [Ukraine] more than they ever got if we have to.”

Combining this statement with what he said in the debate, Trump’s plan would entail giving Ukraine much more weaponry than Biden has if Putin were to keep demanding large amounts of Ukrainian territory as a condition for peace.

I’m not counting on Trump’s approach to succeed. But depending on the specifics, it might not be an unreasonable approach to try. It’s far more reasonable than trying to coerce Israel into letting Hamas’ remaining combatants live to fight another day and giving them and their fellow Jew haters a state.

Willick concludes his article this way:

Gone are the days when the United States had one hawkish and one dovish party. Instead, in Trump and Harris, we see partisan selectivity about where in the world to pressure anti-American forces, and where to seek compromise with them, based on increasingly polarized political sympathies.

In my opinion, there is still a hawkish party and a dovish one, but the differences are less stark than they once were. The main change is probably in the willingness to send U.S. forces to fight overseas. Here, there seems to be some degree of convergence between the two parties.

However, the GOP, even under Trump, wants our allies to win wars that are winnable as a practical matter. The Democrats don’t share that desire — not when the ally in question is Israel and, so far, not when the ally is Ukraine. Biden has been unwilling to give Ukraine the weapons it needs to turn the tide against Russia.

And, of course, the GOP under Trump remains far more hawkish than the Democrats when it comes to Iran, our arch-enemy.

We may no longer have a hawkish party and a dovish to the degree we once did. But the Republicans can still fairly be described as the less dovish of the two.