As for the alleged left-wing challenger in the Democratic ring, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), the fact that months after launching his presidential bid he still hasn’t put up a single foreign policy statement on his web site speaks volumes. Martha Raddatz, interviewing Sanders on ABC’s “This Week,” noted that odd omission:
“[T]here are two issues that are entirely missing from your campaign website, and those are issues of national security and foreign policy. Don’t you feel these are issues that a president should be very concerned about?”
“SANDERS: Absolutely, Martha. And we will – you know, in all fairness, we’ve only been in this race for three and a half months. And we’ve been focusing, quite correctly, as you’ve indicated, on the economy, on the collapse of the American middle class, on massive income and wealth inequality. But you’re absolutely right, foreign policy is a huge issue. Let me just say a word or two about that. And we are going to spend more time on that.”
A word, or two, is about all he has spent on the subject since announcing his candidacy, and so Raddatz spends most of the interview asking him about it. Specifically, she asks him to define the conditions under which he would authorize the use of military force. Bernie responds with a desultory “Yeah, there are times when you have to use force, no question about it.” He then goes on to describe his votes against both Gulf wars, and his vote to authorize the US invasion of Afghanistan in response to the 9/11 attacks.
Raddatz comes back at him with:
“And is that only when we’re attacked? Is that only when we’re attacked? Because if you look at your record, you supported the invasion into Afghanistan after we were attacked. Is that the only time you would support it?”
“SANDERS: No, not at all.”
Here Sanders admits that he’s not necessarily opposed to launching a war of aggression, i.e., a conflict in which the United States and its allies attack a nation that has not attacked us and may not even represent a credible threat. Moreover, he fails to enunciate any principles that would govern his behavior on this vital question. So with Bernie in the White House we’re getting a surprise package when it comes to the question of war and peace.
Yet a war launched by this avowed socialist wouldn’t actually be much of a surprise at all. In her interview with Sanders, Raddatz wonders if Russia and China would take him seriously if they decided to ally and launch some unspecified aggression, and Sanders replies:
“Well, I think they would be making a very, very big mistake. I believe that the United States should have the strongest military in the world. We should be working with other countries in coalition. And when people threaten the United States or threaten our allies or commit genocide, the United States with other countries should be prepared to act militarily.”
So here we have at least some criteria that would provoke President Bernie into going to war – and they are not much different from those that previous US presidents have invoked to justify US military action. A “threat,” after all, can be interpreted in many ways: remember when Nikita Khrushchev declared “We will bury you!” That sure sounded like a threat at the time. Would Bernie have launched World War III on account of it? Well, probably not: but you see the trouble here – the sheer vagueness of the “threat” criterion makes it infinitely elastic. This “threat” business also includes our allies – but which allies? Israel? Ukraine? Egypt?
And then there’s the “genocide” provision of the Bernie Doctrine. Which means that any time our hopped-up pro-war media proclaim that a “genocide” is ‘imminent,” as it supposedly was (but really wasn’t) in Libya, then it’s time to send in the Marines.
United States
Bernie Sanders: American socialist
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Minesweeper
Bookmarks