Is Mike Pence Familiar With Donald Trump’s Position on Syria?

Trump’s running mate contradicted his stance during the vice presidential debate.

Patrick Semansky/AP

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Throughout the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump has seemed content to cede leadership in Syria to Russia. But at Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence made a stunning about-face from his running mate’s position by saying the United States should stand up to Russia and even be willing to bomb the Syrian military to stop humanitarian disasters.

“If Russia…continues to be involved in this barbaric attack on civilians in Aleppo, the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike military targets of the Assad regime,” Pence said. It was part of a forceful case that the United States should stand up to Russia, which is a key ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Russian aircraft have flown bombing missions in Syria for the past year, killing almost 10,000 people in that time. Russia has also stepped up its air campaign in recent days in the city of Aleppo, killing several hundred civilians and destroying hospitals in the process. “The provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength,” Pence said.

Pence’s comments were by far the most hawkish ones made so far by either the Trump or Clinton campaigns. During the Republican primaries, Trump proposed putting 30,000 troops in Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS. But he has also said that the US has “bigger problems than Assad” and has repeatedly called for working with Russia on an anti-ISIS campaign. “If we could get Russia to help us get rid of ISIS—if we could actually be friendly with Russia—wouldn’t that be a good thing?” he said at a rally this summer. Confronting the Syrian army and its Russian allies could lead to direct combat between US and Russian aircraft or US jets being shot down by recently placed Russian missiles.

Clinton is also seen as a Syria hawk. She has criticized the Obama administration’s policy on Syria and supports the creation of a no-fly-zone to protect Syrian civilians. That hawkishness has drawn criticism from other Democrats, and Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned last month that a no-fly-zone could drag the United States into war with Russia. Kaine reiterated Clinton’s desire to create a “humanitarian zone” during Tuesday’s debate, but he pointedly avoided saying how a Clinton administration would enforce such safe areas and did not mention Clinton’s support for a no-fly-zone.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend