Trevor Timm writes:
Now that it’s increasingly likely that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
will be the two major candidates for president in the general election, voters
are once again left without a true anti-war candidate, or even a decisive break
from the last decade and a half of disastrous foreign policy.
And Trump confirmed on Wednesday in his “big” foreign policy speech that he will be a chaotic and
unpredictable aggressor whose opinion changes with the wind.
When Bernie
Sanders leaves the race, there will no longer be a credible voice saying that
more bombing is not necessarily the answer to solving all the problems in the
Middle East, many of which were caused by bombing in the first place.
Trump started off his speech on
Wednesday by reading from a teleprompter in a rambling and incoherent manner,
declaring that Obama has “depleted” our military (false), the Iran deal was the “worst
agreement” (why?) and that we don’t support Israel, “a force for justice and
peace” (absurd) – hallmark Republican conventional
wisdom talking points.
He then did say some things that suggested he would not look to
immediately start new wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, but it’s hard to
take anything he says on the subject seriously.
He swung wildly from one
position to its opposite on multiple occasions, contradicting himself at
various times from comments he made years to mere minutes prior.
For example, he said that bombing
Libya was “a disaster”, but he then questioned why we aren’t still bombing
Libya right now.
He claimed that “unlike other candidates for the presidency,
war and aggression will not be my first instinct.”
Yet he’s bragged in the
recent past about wanting to bring back waterboarding, or “much worse”, killing terrorists’ entire families, and would not be
opposed to using nuclear bombs, even in Europe.
He remarked that there’s “too
much destruction out there – too many destructive weapons,” but just five
minutes earlier in the speech, he said the US’s nuclear
arsenal was in dire need of “renewal”.
While Trump’s foreign policy seems random and
unpredictable (he actually bragged about this), it’s hard to see how Clinton’s
approach to war is much better.
Clinton has run on a more hawkish foreign policy than most Democrats and Republicans. As many have pointed out, her positions are often more
militaristic than anyone else in the race.
She is in favor of a no-fly zone in
Syria – a euphemism for declaring war on the Assad regime on one side, while
also bombing Isis on the other.
She also counts among
her friends unindicted war criminal Henry Kissinger, and she has neocons already lining up behind her rather than supporting Trump.
This is not to say Trump and
Clinton are the same when it comes to foreign policy – there is plenty of
legitimate disagreement. Trump’s xenophobic call for a ban on Muslim immigrants
and open calls for torture come to mind.
But on a lot of issues, like the Isis
war, praise for dictators and trillions of dollars in military
spending, voters are left with a similar choice on foreign policy as they had
in 2012.
(Remember: for all Mitt Romney’s bluster and slimy rhetoric, he and
Obama basically had the same approach to foreign policy as well.)
Now the only question is which
candidate will be elected to continue expanding the $2tn, never-ending war on terror that has
already spread across the Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment