Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 22 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Are Sanders and Warren Throwing a Lifeline to the Military-Industrial Complex?

By       (Page 1 of 3 pages)     (# of views)   4 comments
Author 3852
Message Medea Benjamin
Become a Fan
  (27 fans)

From Smirking Chimp

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J S Davies

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders
(Image by YouTube, Channel: Senator Elizabeth Warren)
  Details   DMCA

Among the front-runners in the Democratic Party presidential primary, Senators Warren and Sanders not only have the most progressive domestic agenda, but also the most anti-war, pro-diplomacy foreign policy agenda. The sharpest distinction between them is that Sanders has voted against over 80% of recent record military spending bills in the Senate, while Warren has voted for two thirds of them.

But their pro-diplomacy worldview has blind spots. They have both tempered their calls for peace and diplomacy with attacks on Russia and China, framed as warnings against "authoritarianism." These attacks -- in the present-day context of bipartisan Russia- and China-bashing -- carve out an ominous exception to their foreign policy agenda big enough to fly a squadron of F-35s through. This creates a pretext for continuing U.S. militarism and risks undermining their commitment to peace.

Warren's and Sanders' Visions

Warren defined her vision of U.S. foreign policy with an article in the January/February 2019 edition of Foreign Affairs. She began, "Around the world, democracy is under assault. Authoritarian governments are gaining power, and right-wing demagogues are gaining strength." She asked, "How did we get here?" and answered her question with an accurate and intelligent account of the failures of neoliberalism.

Warren explained that, after the Cold War, U.S. policymakers "began to export a particular brand of capitalism, one that involved weak regulations, low taxes on the wealthy, and policies favoring multinational corporations. And the United States took on a series of seemingly endless wars, engaging in conflicts with mistaken or uncertain objectives and no obvious path to completion. The impact of these policy changes has been devastating."

Warren made a coherent critique of the U.S.'s militarized approach to terrorism, and promised to cut military spending and bring troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. She champions a No First Use nuclear weapons policy, which would be a long overdue step toward ending the threat of nuclear annihilation that still hangs over us all.

But Warren also launched a fierce attack on Russia and China, lumping them together with Hungary, Turkey, the Philippines and Brazil under the umbrella of "authoritarianism."

"This marriage of authoritarianism and corrupt capitalism," Warren declared, "...allows authoritarian leaders to foment a global crisis of confidence in democracy." And yet, by her own analysis, it is neoliberal "center-left" and "center-right" governments that have sold out their voters to plutocratic corporate interests and caused this public loss of faith in mainstream politicians and parties. The rise of extreme right-wing leaders like Trump, Bolsonaro and Duterte is the result of this "global crisis of confidence in democracy," not the cause of it.

Senator Sanders gave a major foreign policy speech in 2017 at Westminster College in Missouri, from the same stage where Churchill made his "iron curtain" speech in 1946. Sanders' speech laid out a bold, progressive foreign policy agenda, filling in what many people felt was a missing piece in his 2016 campaign.

Sanders quoted President Eisenhower's farewell speech on the Military-Industrial Complex and his 1953 speech after Stalin's death, in which Eisenhower called military spending "a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

Eisenhower backed up that rhetoric by slashing U.S. military spending by 39% in his first two years in office, and then holding it at about that level for the remainder of his presidency, even under the extreme pressures of the Cold War.

Sanders argued that the U.S. post-Cold War goal of "benevolent global hegemony" had been "utterly discredited," particularly "by the disastrous Iraq War and the instability and destruction it has brought to the region." Instead, he went on, "Our goal should be global engagement based on partnership, rather than dominance."

Sanders went on to talk about how U.S. military and covert interventions in other countries "have caused incalculable harm," mentioning U.S. roles in the 1953 coup in Iran, the Vietnam War, the 1973 coup in Chile, civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala, the U.S. war in Iraq, and the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

Well Said 1   Supported 1   Valuable 1  
Rate It | View Ratings

Medea Benjamin Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace and author of Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection. 

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Ten Reasons to Move Cheney's Book to the Crime Section

Tom Cotton is the Worst Bully in the Senate ---- Here Are 10 Reasons Why

Hillary Clinton and Saudi Arabia

The Egyptian General and the Gladiola

Dear Jon Stewart, Sane People Protest Crazy Wars

Julian Assange: Wikileaks Has the Goods on the Deaths of Innocent Iraqis Killed by the US

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

3 people are discussing this page, with 4 comments


Fred W

Become a Fan
Author 8452

(Member since Oct 30, 2007), 1 fan, 225 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

Sorry for the rambling narrative coming up, but here it is:

Amy Goodman recently had a guest on to talk about the recent nuclear accident in Russia, with special emphasis (by Amy) on what she considered a cover-up by the Russian press. Then they talked a lot about Chernobyl and how many civilians were deceived by the Soviet government. The guest was an expert on the topic of nuclear accidents, drift of radiation, etc., and was quite interesting. But what struck me was that Amy tended to keep coming back to "Russian duplicity", whereas the guest had a more general view, leading the discussion to other nuclear disasters such as Fukushima and Washington State.

Afterwards, I talked with my wife about the tendency of many on the left to denigrate Russia and Putin and thus play into the hands of MIC/Deep State. She pointed out to me that same idea of "Russian authoritarianism", including their support for anti-immigrant positions with concomitant support for "the Christian right wing" who allegedly supports anti-gay and "white nationalist" policies, and also not forget their massive investments in the petroleum economy; saying that we should not refrain from criticizing Putin and Russia when they do "bad things", that that doesn't mean that we should bomb or invade them, but that, still, they need to be criticized as needed.

That's hard to disagree with, but at the same time it seems that we need to very much try to disconnect such criticisms from the neo-lib agenda. And Medea Benjamin is making that point, that even Sanders and Warren, who are near the best of the lot, muddle things up when they hint at a "War on Authoritarianism". On the one hand, they are playing up to justifiable criticisms of Russia and Putin (although, personally, I have a more nuanced view of their "negatives") and then attaching those criticisms to their attitudes on foreign policy, as if somehow it's the role of the US government to "straighten out" Russia and do it by military means if necessary.

Wrong and dangerous! But more or less shows the distinction between "liberal" and what should be "progressive" thinking that has been going on for decades. But which side are Warren and Sanders on?

Submitted on Wednesday, Aug 28, 2019 at 7:43:53 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Don Smith

Become a Fan
(Member since Feb 25, 2009), 23 fans, 140 articles, 588 quicklinks, 1806 comments, 45 diaries
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

U.S. militarism is so wasteful and destructive, in many ways. And high military spending leaves little money for productive uses. Candidates and activists should spend more time talking about U.S militarism.

Trump ran as an anti-war candidate and has often spoken against U.S. military adventures and against high military spending. But he's inconsistent about it. (He withdrew from arms treaties and agreed to raise Pentagon spending. Plus he risks war with Iran and China.) But if Trump pulls troops out of Afghanistan, and if he fights the Deep State, he may do more to rein in the MIC than Democrats.

I heard that at first Trump wanted to keep military spending at $700 billion in the NDAA. But GOP politicians visited him and insisted it be raised to $750 B.

A problem is that Americans tend to love soldiers and the military. It's the only part of the government they trust, according to polls.

Submitted on Wednesday, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:54:00 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 
Indent

Fred W

Become a Fan
Author 8452

(Member since Oct 30, 2007), 1 fan, 225 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


Reply to Don Smith:   New Content

With all due respect, the subject of the article is not Trump, but Warren and Sanders. There is, of course, plenty to complain about Trump, but the problem here is figure out what to do about the Democrat candidates.

Submitted on Thursday, Aug 29, 2019 at 12:10:14 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Neal Herrick

Become a Fan
Author 92351

(Member since Feb 22, 2014), 4 fans, 36 articles, 92 comments
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

Excellent article and comments! In 1947 we fumbled a chance to partner with Russia on the Marshall Plan. We went it on our own and they went it their own (on a smaller scale). It was a shining hour for us and the money we spent and lent came back to US industry in the form of purchases. It was also a shining chance to move in the direction of peace. My ship (I was a sailor), the USS Siboney, CVE-116 (a sword beat into plowshares), hauled agricultural equipment to the mid-east and Africa.


Submitted on Friday, Aug 30, 2019 at 7:40:35 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment