2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"On Foreign Policy, Sanders may disappoint devotees"- any response bernie supporters?
Likewise, the leftist icon Noam Chomsky tells Newsweek he has “no idea who his advisers are, or who he is close to.”Norman Solomon, a prominent left-wing activist, charged last summer that Sanders’s few public pronouncements on foreign policy were “scarcely different than President Obama’s current stance...and hardly distinguish him from his rivals for the nomination.” Sanders, he added, “is standing behind the Syria policies of...Obama, who has declined to order no-fly zone actions.
”Many of his devotees might also be surprised to learn that while Sanders denounces wasteful military spending, he’s backed the F-35 joint strike force warplane, whose monster cost overruns have earned it the moniker, “The jet that ate the Pentagon.” Assigning a squadron of them to the Vermont Air National Guard (one of many state-based units that rotate in and out of the Middle East) could “maintain hundreds of jobs here in Vermont,” he has said.And maybe that’s why Sanders doesn’t want to say much more about national security issues than that he opposed the Iraq invasion in 2003, because it would rattle his progressive followers.
Rather than campaign for a new "organization like NATO" to battle ISIS, he sticks with his guaranteed applause lines about big banks and economic fairness.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/bernie-sanders-foreign-policydisappoint-devotees-421508.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... why does he continue too ignore it? You'd think after all these months he'd have studied and brushed up on this.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)But such figures serve an important function for a successful candidate nevertheless, she adds. “You want to keep everybody happy. You don’t want them writing op-ed pieces [that might be critical of] your candidate. You get them to ‘contribute their ideas’ and then you circulate their papers around the group to keep them all content.”
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/bernie-sanders-foreign-policydisappoint-devotees-421508.html
Really
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)The same year, Clinton led the campaign for forcible regime change in Libya, despite opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Responding to the gruesome sodomizing of President Moammar Gadhafi with a bayonet, Clinton laughed and said, “We came, we saw, he died.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/want-endless-war-love-the_b_9133660.html
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)unreflexively associate "foreign affairs" with "national security". I wonder why.
Perhaps Mr. Sanders as President might be able, without taking his eye off those balls, to open anf offer leadership on some other lines of approach, such as on environment, social & economic justice, mutual understanding...
suffragette
(12,232 posts)Address environmental issues that cross Canadian and US borders, including Keystone and train and boat shipment of coal/tar sands out through the West to China.
Sanders has been actively visiting and listening to these concerns in the U.S.
It would be great if he could help build a bridge by working with the Nations and Trudeau and if the focus was on building bridges rather than bombing them.
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)I'm quite sure Mr. Sanders could help build such bridges, if allowed.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)It shouldn't be, but it currently is.
Here's some info from the region I live in on the Coast Salish working across borders on shared issues. This has grown to include environmental groups and progressive organizations.
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/02/17/coast-salish-nations-unite-protect-salish-sea
The Lummi, Swinomish, Suquamish and Tulalip tribes of Washington, and the Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish and Musqueam Nations in British Columbia stand together to protect the Salish Sea. Our Coast Salish governments will not sit idle while Kinder Morgan’s proposed TransMountain Pipeline, and other energy-expansion and export projects, pose a threat to the environmental integrity of our sacred homelands and waters, our treaty and aboriginal rights, and our cultures and life ways.
http://www.seattleweekly.com/home/954563-129/a-new-pnw-alliance-aims-to
A New PNW Alliance Aims to Shield the Salish From Destruction
Native Americans, environmentalists, and fed-up citizens unite to keep corporations from turning the region into a fossil fuel corridor
By Kelton Sears Wed., Sep 10 2014 at 09:51AM
Salmon have long been spiritual symbols of the Pacific Northwest—aquatic residents of the Salish Sea that have given life to Coast Salish people for 14,000 years and white settlers for 150. That the skin of the Northwest’s spirit animal is melting off is just one of many reasons organizers say they are forming the brand-new Nawt-sa-maat Alliance, a group that has vowed to defeat oil and coal corporations bent on turning the Pacific Northwest into a fossil-fuel corridor.
Nawt-sa-maat, a Coast Salish word that means “One house, one heart, one prayer,” is an unprecedented trans-border coalition of Coast Salish indigenous nations, environmentalists, interfaith groups, and youth activists that met for the first time this past weekend in Discovery Park. The Alliance’s goal? “To protect the sacredness of the Salish Sea.”
Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Thank you.
Nawt-sa-maat, “One house, one heart, one prayer,” is surely a reality experienced by all sane peoples who share this biosphere. I feel we should all respect and protect what is sacred to each of us in our home places, while recognising that all our (sane) neighbors feel the same.
I'm crying hot tears and will now meditate.
Thank you.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Should be held accountable for the failing costly program.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Zira
(1,054 posts)
My Good Babushka
(2,710 posts)No matter who you choose, you are going to get some iteration of our fifteen-year-long failed strategy on counter-terrorism, the kind that makes more terrorists. It's bleak.
jfern
(5,204 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)and avowed pacifist??? Sanders supporters should know his history....
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)great deal of courage to stand up and declare yourself a Conscientious Objector back then. But I would NEVER expect a Republicrat or republicon to either understand or appreciate this fact. In fact, conservative hogs at the time heaped scorn, hate, and venom upon we Conscientious Objectors at the time.
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Anyone running on both sides.
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)involvement has been tragic, pretty much since WWII. I don't want Sanders to be consulting with the very same people who led us into such disasters year after year, benefiting no one but companies like Halliburton. Can anyone point out any nation where the majority of the people were better off for our involvement since NATO began?
Iraq? Chile? Viet Nam? The list of nations is long. The list of those who died in the process, US and Non-US victims, is too long to imagine compiling. We have done no one any favors, except for some of the Peace Corps volunteers but by now most locals can easily be convinced those men and women really work for the CIA.
Our foreign policy has been a disaster and the liklihood of Kissinger's friend getting us into another land war, this time with Iran, can't be ignored or dismissed out of hand.
As to the OP, who is it that is making the comments. I see Chomsky quoted and someone named Solomon who I've never heard of before. It isn't even clear who is being quoted in the third paragraph but that doesn't matter since support for the F-35, yet another Pentagon boondoggle, has nothing to do with foreign policy issues to begin with. The whole thing should have been scrapped, along with the Littoral coastal ships and the planned new Aircraft Carriers.
It is easy to see that Sanders isn't listening to the media on who he should be consulting with which is not a bad thing in my view. At least the people behind PNAC aren't signing on to his campaign though they do seem to like HRC a lot.
For those who don't know what PNAC was about, or who Kissinger was, and how many people died as a result of their policies I suggest you look 'em up, and then decide if those are the kind of people you would be comfortable advising your president.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Saved me some time by writing what I would have!
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)and thank you!
DemocracyDirect
(708 posts)Can anyone point out any nation where the majority of the people were better off for our involvement since...
War is for the betterment of a few.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Indeed it should not be any one country because the roles of "global policeman" and 'national interests' get muddled. I think Bernie would lead a conversation on how to structure and govern a 'global policeman'.
Vinca
(50,236 posts)I don't know why Hillary supporters feel the need to demean Bernie. He's a good person with a life's history of fighting for justice for the oppressed. You should be sitting on your laurels. Hillary was the presumed nominee when she announced and it appears she will be in the general election.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)And I think Sec Clinton's foreign policy is a disaster.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)I'm not.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I have asked before and will ask again right now- what are HRC's successes in regards to foreign policy?
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)Not a single supporter can point out a foreign policy success. IMO, she is the reason republicans say that Obama foreign policy has been a failure.
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)was her finest hours. She testifies well, but her actual job performance, not so much.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)HRC was not without influence with Obama in her role as SOS. I'm certainly no insider and have no knowledge of what it could be, but there is a reason she resigned from her position as SOS and the reason isn't because she wanted to run for President. I think she was asked to resign.
However, the question that none of her supporters will answer is- what are her accomplishments outside of causing more unrest? Where for example has she secured peace?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)You criticize her performance but, when I ask you what strategy you would have preferred in Iraq and Syria, you tell me not to ask you that. She planned to leave the Obama Administratiion after the first term which is keeping with tradition.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)A question that HRC supporters including yourself -who apparently are not capable of answering the question.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)I believe the President's policy in Iraq and Syria has been spot on. There were only two ways to respond to that region. You either re-insert ground troops to fight ISIS or you train indigenous forces on the ground to fight them. This is a Sunni/Shia civil war. I think the President has made the wise choice. What would you have preferred him to do ?
timmymoff
(1,947 posts)
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)And I know Bernie has good judgement as opposed to her.
I'll take a decent human being over corrupt & reckless violence for profit experience any day & twice on Sunday.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bernie really doesn't have any FP platform, or sustained interest, which would make him extremely vulnerable to manipulation. Hillary at least should know by now when she's being screwed around with, and she also has Bill as an advisor.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)And he didn't vote for the Iraq War.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...and I think we need more presidents who aren't so keen on getting us embroiled in conflict with the world. We have bigger fish to fry.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Sanders has criticized the program as wasteful, but now that it's going into production, he would be crazy to support scrapping the F-35. Neither he nor Clinton want to do that because neither of them are crazy. Only Trump wants to scrap the F-35.
karynnj
(59,495 posts)This ignores the OTHER choices. In the long run, we will have only two choices - now, it is a constrained choice of 5 people - 2 Democrats and 3 Republicans.
I suspect if the Newsweek author asked the very people he quotes who is the best choice - they probably would all pick Sanders. Sanders is unquestionably less hawkish than HRC and the Republicans. He has repeatedly contrasted the KNOWN intervention opinions of HRC and himself. He would be LESS interventionist than Obama was ... and Obama is less interventionist than HRC. This is not from conjecture, nor is it disputed by HRC - she wrote chapters on that in her book!
Here, I don't get the "Hey Bernie Sanders' supporters, what do you think of this? It is not hard - there is a constrained choice and in terms of just the gut level estimation of who would be more likely to engage in a war that we would prefer us not getting involved in is not a tough question ... and it is HRC (and the Republicans are worse).
This is just as when HRC herself referenced a vote that only 4 Congressmen voted against that was heavily lobbied by all the fininancial people in Bill Clinton's administration to suggest that he really was not more likely to regulate Wall Street.
Zira
(1,054 posts)He also said Bernie has the best policies of anyone running in this election, and he's donated to Bernie's campaigns in the past.
If he were in a swing state he would vote Hillary to stop the republicans but he prefers Bernie.
Chomsky also speculated that he could endorse Bernie.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)is more non-interventionist. That may disappoint many in DC on our side
but the reason he has held back to discuss his foreign policy worldview
has more to do with avoiding attacks from our own hawks, I think.
Does that approach in campaigning have risks..I suppose it does.
Shocking for some, but not getting further involved and not reacting
is a foreign policy..albeit not one that is palatable for many in the
US.
I suggest people read the OP published recently, its titled the Obama Doctrine.
It may surprise many Clinton supporters, although not in a good way.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)But as a supporter of his over all policies, judgement and record I am reasonably assured that Sen Sanders won't lie us into a war of choice, conduct regime change to profit American business interests or establish no fly zones so we can shoot down Russian aircraft.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)femmedem
(8,196 posts)From U.S. News and World Report:
"...In recent weeks, Sanders has been asking similar questions about the U.S. "war" against the Islamic State group. The Obama administration has offered little more than Bush-era wishful thinking. The Obama strategy on the Islamic State group appears to be based on the notion that that blowing up more people, places and things in Iraq and Syria will advance American interests. This might appeal to a visceral desire to appear to act forcefully in the face of the group's atrocities, but it is unlikely to produce the outcomes that the U.S. wants. No one seriously believes that the problems in that region are due to an insufficient amount of blowing-things-up. The Republican candidates project fake strength by making outlandish threats and unrealistic promises about the Islamic State group, as if more U.S. military operations magically lead to optimal outcomes.
This logic applies beyond military questions, and it links local with global issues in a third way: The problems that people face in the U.S. – falling wages, dirty air and water, shrinking support from government, growing privileges for the super-rich – are the same as people all around the world, and they are facilitated by a web of international institutions.
When corporations hide their profits in offshore tax havens, they take advantage of international rules that smooth the flow of transnational finance. When vulture hedge funds buy sovereign debt and force countries to cut social spending, they rely on international rules that put foreign creditors at the front of the line for payment. When the U.N. caused a cholera epidemic in Haiti and ignored all calls to pay compensation, it made use of the treaties that give it immunity from any courts anywhere. In each case, international rules act as transmission belts that carry the effects of globalization into the lives of ordinary people, and these are slanted toward the interests of the powerful. The political and the economic are inseparable, as are the global and the local..."
more at link:
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)excellent article..
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Bernie Sanders made plain as day he would restore Democracy to US foreign policy, something sorely missing since the days of Jimmy Carter. As framed, Chomsky's quote implies "leftist icon" doesn't have a clue what Bernie thinks.
For those interested in what Bernie would do:
SALINAS: In South Florida there are still open wounds among some exiles regarding socialism and communism. So please explain what is the difference between the socialism that you profess and the socialism in Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela.
SANDERS: Well, let me just answer that. What that was about was saying that the United States was wrong to try to invade Cuba, that the United States was wrong trying to support people to overthrow the Nicaraguan government, that the United States was wrong trying to overthrow in 1954, the government — democratically elected government of Guatemala.
Throughout the history of our relationship with Latin America we’ve operated under the so-called Monroe Doctrine, and that said the United States had the right do anything that they wanted to do in Latin America. So I actually went to Nicaragua and I very shortly opposed the Reagan administration’s efforts to overthrow that government. And I strongly opposed earlier Henry Kissinger and the — to overthrow the government of Salvador Aliende (ph) in Chile.
I think the United States should be working with governments around the world, not get involved in regime change. And all of these actions, by the way, in Latin America, brought forth a lot of very strong anti-American sentiments. That’s what that was about.
SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/us/politics/transcript-democratic-presidential-debate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)Response to mountain grammy (Reply #42)
Octafish This message was self-deleted by its author.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Really, Bernie and Hillary are so very far apart on so very many issues, besides war, that I believe this is a non-starter.
I am not a one-issue Bernie supporter. I think Hillary is bad for people in the US and all over the world.
And, as far as foreign policy goes, Bernie is not as hawkish as Hillary. So, even if I were a one-issue voter, and that issue was war and regime change - Bernie would still be my guy.
I guess, boiled down - Bernie votes to keep the F-35 going, to provide jobs. I feel that Hillary would really love to use the F-35 on people. She would be the one most likely to actually use it.
ellenrr
(3,864 posts)Clearly hilary is an extreme war-mongerer.
As for Sanders, he realizes this:
any voter who is pro-peace, anti-interventionist, is going to vote for him.
Who else would they vote for?
so there is no reason for Bernie to possibly alienate some people by defining his foreign policy.
It is a reasonable strategy.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)possibly when he gets all of the information that is now not available to him since it is included in the presidential daily briefing and in top secret documents that are probably not available to the candidates(at least I hope not) he may have a better idea of what is really taking place in the world and it may have some sort of impact on his views and positions
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)maybe americans want to support rw dictators to help us corporations in central america. maybe they want the clinton fdn to block wage increases in haiti to help more us corporations. 
Autumn
(44,972 posts)So has Obama. Didn't read the article don't need to.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)foreign affairs. SMH
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Hmmmmm.
NO BRAINER!
Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)Latin America or destabilized governments in the Middle East. At least not with the extremism of Sec. Clinton. As Pres. Clinton said, maybe while getting off the Lolita Express, "Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
thesquanderer
(11,970 posts)The question isn't whether someone is perfect, the question is which of the two are better. Bernie is less hawkish than Hillary.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)obamneycare
(40 posts)http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/why-isnt-hillarys-hawkishness-a-dealbreaker/433887/
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-foreign-poicy-213619
...
[...]
The message Obama telegraphed in speeches and interviews was clear: He would not end up like the second President Bush—a president who became tragically overextended in the Middle East, whose decisions filled the wards of Walter Reed with grievously wounded soldiers, who was helpless to stop the obliteration of his reputation, even when he recalibrated his policies in his second term. Obama would say privately that the first task of an American president in the post-Bush international arena was “Don’t do stupid shit.”
Obama’s reticence frustrated Power and others on his national-security team who had a preference for action. Hillary Clinton, when she was Obama’s secretary of state, argued for an early and assertive response to Assad’s violence. In 2014, after she left office, Clinton told me that “the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad … left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.” When The Atlantic published this statement, and also published Clinton’s assessment that “great nations need organizing principles, and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle,” Obama became “rip-shit angry,” according to one of his senior advisers. The president did not understand how “Don’t do stupid shit” could be considered a controversial slogan. Ben Rhodes recalls that “the questions we were asking in the White House were ‘Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus? Who is pro–stupid shit?’ ” The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid shit.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It's been the case all along - best you can say in his case on this issue is that he is clearly the leastest of the united evils. Clinton meanwhile is seeing the neocons converge around her. Since basically that is what she does on FP.
Not that Sanders would take on the Pentagon if he coule - who knows - but it's hard to imagine anyone taking on the Pentagon and the Wall Street-centered oligarchy in the same election cycle. Too many monsters to slay at once.
On the other hand, it's inherent in his promises. "How do you pay for all this?" You close down the military empire, obviously, and act like a country of the people, for the people, and not the global hegemon who dictates to all.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Good enough for me.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)any and all POTUS will disappoint devotees, with the possible exception of Trump, mostly he despises the civil service to the point that he will not listen to them. On the other hand he adores the Intel and military services, so it is a 50-50 as to how much even he will disappoint.
http://www.amazon.com/National-Security-Government-Michael-Glennon/dp/0190206446/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458538471&sr=1-1&keywords=national+security%2C+double+government
I am sure that most people telling you they expect that is surprising though, And i do not expect Newsweek to actually go into why we have the sort of continuity we do. For the record, it is bad.
flamingdem
(39,308 posts)Hillary and perhaps Obama were responsible for terrible decisions in Honduras and incredibly reactive thinking about Cuba and Venezuela. We can't afford those behaviors with our neighbors, too many suffer and too many die from idiocy regarding Latin America and perceived threats.
Bernie had it right about Central America in the Reagan era and about Cuba. He judged it correctly and did this again in a debate with Hillary.
He called Cuba authoritarian, which is is, and said that he hoped for greater democracy, really not that left of Obama's current thinking.
Hillary redbaited him horribly over that. It's hard to trust her after that kind of disgusting commentary.
flamingdem
(39,308 posts)I can't take it anymore.
After Berta Caceres assasination I could not longer pretend that Hillary is acceptable in foreign affairs. She doesn't have her heart in the right place and doesn't know who is a bad influence. Her associate Lanny Davis was representing the right wing in Honduras -- this is a person she goes to for advice! In fact I think she knows she's full of shit, and they're full of shit, and Iliana Ros-Lehtinen and Diaz Balart and Noreiga and Otto Reich are full of shit but she doesn't know how to think for herself and reject them
Now she wants to take credit for the opening to Cuba. That I will attempt, once again to learn the facts before judging but for years she was very right wing on Cuba and influenced Bill. Her brother was married to a right wing Cuban American lawyer and this influenced her. I doubt she did much about Cuba, and it was Bill who instituted Helms Burton that now makes it IMPOSSIBLE for a President to get rid of the Cuban Embargo because he was "mad" about the right wing Cubans getting shot down, when they flew into Cuban airspace!
I just ask that those supporting Hillary, and yes I'll vote for her regardless, will take some time to understand what she has done incorrectly in foreign policy. She is a potential danger in this area.
Before Her Assassination, Berta Cáceres Singled Out Hillary Clinton for Backing Honduran Coup
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/11/before_her_assassination_berta_caceres_singled
stone space
(6,498 posts)