Bernie Sanders Has a Foreign Policy Now by David Swanson + Ralph Nader on Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders - Caricature

Image by DonkeyHotey via Flickr

by David Swanson
Writer, Dandelion Salad
Let’s Try Democracy
September 27, 2015

After 25,000 people asked, Senator Bernie Sanders added a few words to his presidential campaign website about the 96% of humanity he’d been ignoring.

He did not, as his spoken comments heretofore might have suggested, make this statement entirely or at all about fraud and waste in the military. He did not even mention Saudi Arabia, much less declare that it should “take the lead” or “get its hands dirty” as he had been doing in interviews, even as Saudi Arabia bombs Yemeni families with U.S. cluster bombs. While he mentioned veterans and called them brave, he also did not turn the focus of his statement toward glorification of troops, as he very well might have.

All that to the good, the statement does lack some key ingredients. Should the United States be spending a trillion dollars a year and over half of discretionary spending on militarism? Should it cut that by 50%, increase it by 30%, trim it by 3%? We really can’t tell from this statement insisting on the need for major military spending while admitting the harm it does:

“And while there is no question our military must be fully prepared and have the resources it needs to fight international terrorism, it is imperative that we take a hard look at the Pentagon’s budget and the priorities it has established. The U.S. military must be equipped to fight today’s battles, not those of the last war, much less the Cold War. Our defense budget must represent our national security interests and the needs of our military, not the reelection of members of Congress or the profits of defense contractors. The warning that President Dwight David Eisenhower gave us about the influence of the Military-Industrial Complex in 1961 is truer today than it was then.”

That warning, of course, might be interpreted by some as suggesting that investing in preparation for “today’s battles” is what produces today’s battles.

And which of today’s battles would Sanders like to end? Drones are not mentioned. Special forces are not mentioned. Foreign bases are not mentioned. The only hint he gives about future action in Iraq or Syria suggests that he would continue to use the military to make things worse while simultaneously trying other approaches to make things better:

“We live in a dangerous world full of serious threats, perhaps none more so than the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and al-Qaeda. Senator Sanders is committed to keeping America safe, and pursuing those who would do Americans harm. But we cannot combat international terrorism alone. We must work with our allies to root out terrorist funding networks, provide logistical support in the region, disrupt online radicalization, provide humanitarian relief, and support and defend religious freedom. Moreover, we must begin to address the root causes of radicalization, instead of focusing solely on military responses to those who have already become radicalized.”

Would he end the U.S. war on Afghanistan?

“Sen. Sanders called on both Presidents Bush and Obama to withdraw U.S. troops as soon as possible and for the people of Afghanistan to take full responsibility for their own security. After visiting Afghanistan, Sen. Sanders spoke-out against the rampant corruption he saw, particularly in regards to elections, security and the banking system.”

From that, an American suffering under the delusion that the war had already been ended would be enlightened not at all, and one really can’t tell whether Sanders would choose to take any sort of action to end it in reality. Of course, he is a U.S. Senator and is not attempting to cut off the funding.

Sanders’ statement is a very mixed bag. He supports the Iran agreement while pushing false claims about “Iran developing nuclear weapons.” He criticizes “both sides” in Palestine, but says not one word about cutting off free weaponry or international legal protection for Israel — or for any other governments. The Pope’s call to end the arms trade, which the United States leads, goes unmentioned. He mentions nuclear weapons, but only the nonexistent ones belonging to Iran, not those of the United States or Israel or any other nation. Disarmament is not an agenda item here. And how could it be when he declares, in violation of the U.N. Charter, in his first paragraph that “force must always be an option”?

Sanders offers no details on a shift away from serving as weapons supplier to the world, to serious investment in aid and diplomacy. But he does say this:

“However, after nearly fourteen years of ill-conceived and disastrous military engagements in the Middle East, it is time for a new approach. We must move away from policies that favor unilateral military action and preemptive war, and that make the United States the de facto policeman of the world. Senator Sanders believes that foreign policy is not just deciding how to react to conflict around the world, but also includes redefining America’s role in the increasingly global economy. Along with our allies throughout the world, we should be vigorous in attempting to prevent international conflict, not just responding to problems. For example, the international trade agreements we enter into, and our energy and climate change policies not only have enormous consequences for Americans here at home, but greatly affect our relations with countries around the world. Senator Sanders has the experience, the record and the vision not just to lead on these critically important issues, but to take our country in a very different direction.”

Sanders claims, however, absurdly, that he has only supported wars that were a “last resort.” He includes among those, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, despite neither having been remotely a last resort. Sanders admits as much, saying, “I supported the use of force to stop the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.” Set aside the fact that it increased the ethnic cleansing and that diplomacy was not really attempted, what he is claiming is a philanthropic mission, not a “last resort.” Sanders also says, “And, in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, I supported the use of force in Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists who attacked us.” Set aside the Taliban’s offer to transfer Osama bin Laden to a third country to be tried, what Sanders is describing is hunting and murdering people in a distant land, not a “last resort” — and also not what he voted for, and Rep. Barbara Lee voted against, which was a blank check for endless war at presidential discretion.

All of this obviously leaves open the possibility of endless global war but suggests a desire not to eagerly seek it out. Also obviously it is far better than Hillary Clinton would say, less than Jill Stein would say (“Establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights. End the wars and drone attacks, cut military spending by at least 50% and close the 700+ foreign military bases that are turning our republic into a bankrupt empire. Stop U.S. support and arms sales to human rights abusers, and lead on global nuclear disarmament.”), and a bit different from what Lincoln Chafee would say (the latter actually admits the U.S. wars created ISIS and are making us less safe, says he’d end drone strikes, etc.). And of course the whole lot of them are a distraction from the struggle to reduce and end militarism and prevent wars in 2015, a year with no election in it. Still, it’s encouraging that a leading “socialist” candidate for U.S. president finally has a foreign policy, even if it hardly resembles Jeremy Corbyn’s.

David Swanson is an author, activist, journalist, and radio host. He is director of and campaign coordinator for Swanson’s books include War Is A Lie. He blogs at and He hosts Talk Nation Radio. He is a 2015 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee.


[DS added the video report]

Ralph Nader on Donald Trump vs Bernie Sanders in 2016

WeAreChange on Sep 27, 2015

In this video Luke Rudkowski talks to Ralph Nader about his analysis of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders leading the pack in the 2016 elections. Ralph Nader is an American political activist, as well as an author, lecturer, and attorney. Nader ran 5 times for as a candidate for President of the United States and is an expert in electoral politics.

from the archives:

Abby Martin and Chris Hedges: War, Propaganda and the Enemy Within

Chris Hedges: Pope Francis and Bernie Sanders on Imperialism and Capitalism

Bernie Sanders Again Insists That Saudi Arabia Should Kill More People by David Swanson

Chris Hedges on Corbyn VS Sanders: Two Different Political Animals + Hedges: US’ Ongoing Assault on Iraq Coughed Up Groups Like ISIS

Is Bernie Sanders Making A “Political Revolution”? by Todd Chretien

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I Have Some Suggestions For You by Ralph Nader

Chris Hedges: Bernie Sanders is Lending Credibility to a Party That is Completely Corporatized, interviewed by Ralph Nader

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I Have Some Questions For You by Lo

Chris Hedges: Bernie Sanders Has Made No Mention of the Military, Part 3 + Our Night with Bernie by Bruce Gagnon

13 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders Has a Foreign Policy Now by David Swanson + Ralph Nader on Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders

  1. Pingback: Bernie Sanders Mentioned the Military Budget by David Swanson + Democratic Party Debate 11.14.15 | Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: Chris Hedges and Ralph Nader: The Death of Electoral Politics | Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: Bernie Sanders’ “Political Revolution” VS A Real Socialist Revolution by Danny Katch | Dandelion Salad

  4. Pingback: Chris Hedges: We Will Overthrow This Capitalist System | Dandelion Salad

  5. Pingback: Abby Martin and Noam Chomsky: Electing The President of an Empire | Dandelion Salad

  6. Pingback: Abby Martin: Debate the Debate + Democratic Party Debate 10.13.15 | Dandelion Salad

  7. Pingback: Regulation of Political, Electoral and Other Behaviors of Americans by the Devil-God of Capital | Dandelion Salad

  8. Pingback: The Nader Challenge and What It Means Today by Todd Chretien | Dandelion Salad

  9. Pingback: Chris Hedges and Sabah Alnasseri: ISIS, The New Israel + Hedges: Europe’s Refugees and American Elections | Dandelion Salad

  10. Pingback: Jeremy Corbyn, Yet Another Imperialist-Socialist by William Bowles | Dandelion Salad

  11. The dilemma for “defense” and “deterrance” advocates is how to rationalize perpetual justification, when the true reason for planetary-scale budgeting is offensive industrialism.

    The “advanced” industrial nations would not need such elaborate measures, if it were not for the fact that the rest of the world has good reason to feel threatened by their legacy of omnipotent violence and extractive tycoon monopolies. History attests to this. It is therefore a question of how our history is formulated, constructed, read and interpreted.

    The US system relies upon the gross ignorance of its electorate reinforced by prejudicial academic tenure through endowments. There is certainly more political diversity in Europe, but the same tendencies prevail.

    Everywhere outside of the USA in the “Western” sphere, political dominance is a matter of capitalizing on paranoid reflexive memory, the foreboding anxieties of breakdown and invasion, exacerbated by ever deepening financial insecurity due to inequalities and exploitation of labour and nature’s resources.

    The world is in debt because of unscrupulous war business. We are told we can only profit from systematic death and destruction. We are called to fight on branded corporate fronts, and we are also expected to pay for the privilege in multiple ways.

    There is a profound need for a new type of intelligence. The clash of civilizations is a seriously imprecise and artificially contrived narrative. It is actually a clash of paradigms.

    The discourse we need is one that embraces these new and more inclusive comprehensive outlooks, outlooks inspired by authentic insight, from lived experience.

  12. It is NOT encouraging. Sanders is a militarist and says so, in addition to being a fake socialist. He frankly supports American imperialism under the guise of Security. The security that US power really promotes is not that of the American people, who are defended by two oceans and weak neighbors. What is being promoted is the security of American power against the American people.

    Sanders is not running against Clinton, he is running FOR her, since he won’t have the money to run in the general Elections. And he is legitimating her militarist world-view by contaminating the naïve Progressive people that he is going to turn over to her. The Terrorists that American power is really fraudulently opposing is the American people, of whom Saunders is operatively supporting the oppression. Sanders is a fraud, who people believe in because they have no other mainstream hope.

Comments are closed.