Our “Bipartisan Foreign Policy” Is All War, No Peace
In terms of foreign policy there are no “choices” for president in 2016, or any other recent election. As has been the case for quite some time now, the Democrats will not nominate a “peace” candidate, despite the fact our nation has been waging war on various smaller countries for nearly 25 years. Bernie Sanders, while sounding about as “liberal” as any candidate ever has, is a committed Zionist, and his “independence” was such that he not only supported Bill Clinton’s indefensible 1999 military attacks on Kosovo, he had the antiwar activists, who had occupied his office in protest of his position, arrested. Sanders supported the “war” in Afghanistan, and in 2003 voted to give President Bush carte blanche authority in both Iraq and elsewhere in his undefined “war on terrorism.”
Hillary Clinton is about as big a warmonger as can be found among the “liberal” set. She supported her husband’s unconscionable 1998 missile strike on a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant (later bragging that he’d been hesitant, but “I urged him to bomb”), and in 2006 was in favor of intervening again in the Sudan. This campaign was strongly criticized by Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi, who blasted it as being “for oil and for the return of colonialism to the African continent.” In 2011, Hillary would gleefully react to the bombing of Libya, which resulted in Qaddafi’s death, by exclaiming, “We came, we saw, he died.” She has been in favor of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, and like all neocons, has called for an attack on Iran. Also in favor of the drumbeats for war with Russia, she attacked Vladmir Putin as doing “what Hitler did in the ’30s.”
Respected constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley has said that Barack Obama has been worse than either Bush or Nixon in terms of launching unilateral, unconstitutional “wars” against other nations. Obama never kept his promises about withdrawing in a timely fashion from Iraq, and continues our misadventures in Afghanistan. He also intervened in Libya, Syria, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and even rattled sabers with Vladmir Putin’s Russia. All these military campaigns, of course, somehow didn’t prevent Obama from winning a Nobel Peace Prize. It’s almost impossible to satirize something like that.
Another darling of the Left, Senator Elizabeth Warren, shares every neocon’s hostility towards Iran. As this “liberal” stated during her campaign for the Senate, “Our number one responsibility is to protect Americans from terrorism, that’s our job, so being tough on terrorism is enormously important.” According to antiwar.com, she forced her own child to join the military. Warren, like Sanders, is a die-hard supporter of Israel, and parrots all the usual talking points about the necessity of having a “Democratic ally” in the region, and how Israel has “a right to defend itself.”
So, if the leading voices in the so-called “liberal” party, the party presumed to be more predisposed towards peace, are always so gung ho for war, then how bad are the Republicans running for president? While Donald Trump has said some things I like, and is making the right kind of enemies, he went on record as supporting the assassination of courageous whistleblower Edward Snowden. Every other Republican candidate, with the exception of Rand Paul, is a passionate neocon whose fiercest criticism of President Obama is that he’s been “soft” on terrorism. Obama has bombed more Muslims than all other presidents combined, but evidently seven countries being attacked militarily isn’t enough for the Ted Cruzs, the Ben Carsons, the Jeb Bushs, or the Chris Christies.
In 2008, the Republicans nominated John McCain, perhaps the public servant more dedicated to war and foreign misadventure than any other in American history. Jimmy Carter was recently compelled to answer McCain’s criticism by labeling him a “warmonger.” Republicans and Democrats alike demand that the U.S. assume a “leadership role” in the world, and continue to pursue the failed globalist interventionism that has made us a pariah everywhere. Even the most tepid overtures of peace are met with charges of appeasement and weakness. One can only imagine what the reaction would be today to John F. Kennedy’s timeless June, 1963 speech at American University, where he pleaded for “peace in all time.”
The few presidential candidates in recent years that were overtly pro-peace were relegated to minor parties, which are given virtually no attention by the mainstream media. Ironically, extreme right-winger Pat Buchanan was one of these, consistently opposing all the recent bombings and occupations of smaller nations. Ralph Nader advocated peace, as did former U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney.
The term “bipartisan foreign policy” is a slap in the face to the very concept of a democratic process. There is no “choice” here for the American voting public. What kind of a charade are we participating in, when in spite of the most excessive military spending the world has even seen, and a constant drumbeat for “war” for nearly twenty five years, no leader is permitted to emerge and simply point out the obvious errors of our foreign policy? Instead, they all must agree to be “bipartisan,” and to support every new military mission. At this point, U.S. presidents of both major parties can feel free to entirely bypass the constitutional requirement of asking for Congressional authorization for war. And our impotent Congress doesn’t really even protest.
If someone like a Trump would come out strongly for disengagement from the affairs of other nations, instead of actually insisting upon more meddling, it would be a miracle. Our foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster by any measure. And yet, we not only continue down this ruinous path, the only option we’re given is to increase the madness, and increase the pressure on other countries to conform to our concept of “freedom” and our way of life. Our military has become in many ways akin to a missionary force, attempting to convert foreign heathens to Americanism.
In my book Hidden History, I detailed many of the atrocities on the part of our military which Bradley Manning exposed, and was subsequently imprisoned for. A country run by honest, sane leaders would not imprison a Bradley Manning, it would honor him. It would be mortified by his disclosures, and it would vow to make certain that these horrific abuses never happened again. But instead of an honest assessment of our errors, all we get is “support the troops” and “thank your for your service.”
It isn’t “weak” to be in favor of peace. America hasn’t been attacked in a very long time. And no, I certainly don’t count the events of 9/11 as being part of a “terrorist” attack upon us, as I chronicled in my book. It is a sad reflection on our leadership that while we have become entangled in the business of other nations all over the world, we have utterly failed to protect our own borders.
So where are the peace candidates? Probably hanging out somewhere with the remaining civil libertarians, in a dark corner of this crumbling nation, unnoticed by our compliant press and probably unwanted by the largely dumbed down, devolving sheeple.