Bernie Sanders Abroad: Is a Peace Presidency Possible?

[Uncle Joe]

For many decades, progressives have looked in vain for candidates who’d be taken seriously on the national stage, while at least starting to come close to representing our thinking. In 2016 that changed. Bernie Sanders energized a grassroots movement that gave the presumptive nominee a real run for her money. He did this primarily by motivating constituencies concerned about economic justice and climate change.

His platform for “political revolution,” however, had relatively little to say about foreign and military policy. Perhaps this is because there has been a broad, bipartisan consensus dating back at least to World War II that embraces the role of the United States as the dominant global hegemon, often referred to euphemistically as “leader of the Free World.” Those who step out of this consensus are generally dismissed or ignored.

While there have been moments of exception, most Democrats in positions of power have embraced massive military budgets that fund bases and naval deployments around the world, permanent maintenance of a vast nuclear arsenal, engagement in one war after another — overt, covert and proxy — and support for regimes that are designated “allies,” regardless of how undemocratic or repressive they are. There’s been broad support of, and subsidies for, the deeply entrenched military-industrial complex. Those who fail to conform to this bipartisan agenda have been labeled “soft,” “unrealistic,” even “un-American” and deemed threats to our “security.”

The Democratic leadership has often adopted much more militaristic positions than those embraced by the party’s rank-and-file members and voters. During the Vietnam War most elected Dems were latecomers to antiwar positions and few offered systemic critiques, writing off the war in Indochina as a “mistake.” Bernie, an antiwar activist, questioned the underpinnings of U.S. imperialism.

(snip)


https://indypendent.org/2019/04/bernie-sanders-abroad-is-a-peace-presidency-possible/

I believe this to be a sound in-depth analysis.

[dlk]

1. Given the Deep Entrenchment of the Military-Industrial Complex, Excellent Question

President Eisenhower warned us nearly 60 years ago. In 2002, Gore Vidal wrote a book, “Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace” that discussed the nearly 200 US offensive military incursions since WWII. In the subsequent 17 years of ongoing military incursions, it’s alarming to think how high that number must be today and the high costs we have all borne, not just in tax dollars, but in human and diplomatic costs.

[Uncle Joe]

4. Timing is everything, let's hope we have

moved past the national critical point of understanding Eisenhower's message regarding the Military Industrial Complex.

[Perrenial Voter]

2. Bernie was very weak on foreign policy in 2016. He's stronger now, but still has some

learning to do; he would need a really strong Secretary of State. Tulsi Gabbard is far more centered on foreign policy than the other candidates, and I think she is taking a lot of flack for it. I don't know if the MIC would allow a peace president.

[sheshe2]

3. Vermont housed the F-16 now to be replaced with the F-35.

They are designed to drop nuclear bombs.



Your article mentions what Democrats support.

While there have been moments of exception, most Democrats in positions of power have embraced massive military budgets that fund bases and naval deployments around the world, permanent maintenance of a vast nuclear arsenal, engagement in one war after another — overt, covert and proxy...

…………………………...

https://vtdigger.org/2018/06/03/will-nukes-accompany-f-35s-to-vermont-no-ones-saying/

But the will of the voters has been ignored by politicians who have the power to ask the Air Force to change the basing. Instead, Weinberger, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch have aggressively backed the proposal. In a recent letter to the Burlington mayor, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said the F-35 basing is a done deal.

snip

The 18 F-35A’s scheduled to arrive at Burlington International Airport in September 2019 will be running block 3F software, which doesn’t allow for the deployment of nuclear weapons. However, the newest F-35 software — called Block 4 — makes it possible for the aircraft to carry nuclear weapons. It is expected that many of the F-35s deployed with the old software will be upgraded, and military leaders are now casting the F-35 as a key element of nuclear deterrence strategy.

snip

At a recent South Burlington Planning Commission meeting, retired Air Force Col. Rosanne Greco, the leader of Vermont’s F-35 opposition, asserted there would be nuclear weapons stored in Burlington.

“You don’t put your gun in one state and your bullets in another,” she argued. A former nuclear targeter, Greco said that even if the bombs were stored out of state, the community should be worried.

“You don’t target the bomb or the cruise missile, you target the platform that delivers the missile,” she said. “So the fact that we are going to be the first operational Air Guard unit to carry these nuclear weapons means automatically this is a high-value target.”

........................The citizens are concerned with their safety, rightfully so.


He supports this, so it is not just 'some Democrats'.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/12/why-bernie-sanders-is-backing-a-15-trillion-military-boondoggle.html