Bernie Sanders' Best Moments Tonight Were on Foreign Policy

By | February 12, 2016

The two high points of tonight’s Democratic debate—and, as far as I’m concerned, the two high points of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign—came when the moderators raised the topic of foreign policy. Sanders has criticized Hillary Clinton for backing the Iraq war before, but this time he used that as a springboard for larger critique:

Angry Grandpa vs. The Stare of Cold FuryNow I think an area in kind of a vague way, or not so vague, where Secretary Clinton and I disagree is the area of regime change. Look, the truth is that a powerful nation like the United States, certainly working with our allies, we can overthrow dictators all over the world.

And God only knows Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. We could overthrow Assad tomorrow if we wanted to. We got rid of Qaddafi. But the point about foreign policy is not just to know that you can overthrow a terrible dictator, it’s to understand what happens the day after.

And in Libya, for example, the United States, Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, working with some other countries, did get rid of a terrible dictator named Qaddafi. But what happened is a political vacuum developed. ISIS came in, and now occupies significant territory in Libya, and is now prepared, unless we stop them, to have a terrorist foothold.

But this is nothing new. This has gone on 50 or 60 years where the United States has been involved in overthrowing governments. Mossadegh back in 1953. Nobody knows who Mossadegh was, democratically elected prime minister of Iran. He was overthrown by British and American interests because he threatened oil interests of the British. And as a result of that, the shah of Iran came in, terrible dictator. The result of that, you had the Iranian Revolution coming in, and that is where we are today. Unintended consequences.

So I believe as president I will look very carefully about unintended consequences. I will do everything I can to make certain that the United States and our brave men and women in the military do not get bogged down in perpetual warfare in the Middle East.

Clinton responded first by noting that Sanders has not opposed regime change in every case (which is true, but it doesn’t say a lot about Clinton’s own judgment). And then she moved on to the argument the Clintonites always raise when Sanders cites her support for the Iraq war: “I do not believe a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat ISIS in 2016.”

That might have been an effective response if Sanders had simply brought up her Iraq vote and left it at that. But of course he hadn’t stopped there. He had put her vote from 2002 in the context of her career-spanning support for an aggressive U.S. foreign policy, reaching up to her recent tenure as secretary of state; and he had put that, in turn, in the larger context of a series of Washington-sponsored regime changes that began before the public had heard of Hillary Clinton. He made a sustained argument both that Clinton’s approach to foreign policy is fundamentally wrong and that it is part of a long tradition of destructive intervention around the globe. And he was essentially right.

The second high point came shortly afterward. After Clinton gave a brief spiel about the decision to send Navy SEALs against Osama bin Laden, Sanders steered the discussion toward something his opponent had said the last time they butted heads onstage:

I had some major disagreements with Christopher Hitchens, but two subjects he was usually right about were Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton.[I]n this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of Henry Kissinger. Now, I find it rather amazing, because I happen to believe that Henry Kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country.

I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I will not take advice from Henry Kissinger. And in fact, Kissinger’s actions in Cambodia, when the United States bombed that country, overthrew Prince Sihanouk, created the instability for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to come in, who then butchered some three million innocent people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. So count me in as somebody who will not be listening to Henry Kissinger.

Again it was a sharp attack, both in terms of being basically correct and in terms of laying bare some of Clinton’s core problems on foreign policy. Not all of the exchange that followed was as illuminating as that—Sanders made an argument about Kissinger, the domino theory, and trade with China that wasn’t very coherent. But the key point had been made: Hillary Clinton embraces the praise of a man whose record includes the “secret” bombing of Cambodia, the Christmas bombing of North Vietnam, and the coup that installed Augusto Pinochet in Chile. Bernie Sanders may not be a foreign-policy whiz, but at least he knows better than to seek counsel from that guy.

After the debate, the CNN panel chortled a little over the Kissinger chatter, suggesting that young viewers would have to Google the man to know who the candidates were talking about. And no doubt quite a few of them were in the dark. But then, such voters would have had to Google the guy when Clinton brought him up in the last debate too. If they did, they’d have plenty to think about as they contrasted Sanders’ account of Kissinger’s career with Clinton’s comment that she was “flattered” by the old butcher’s praise.

Category: Liberty
Feed

About Feed

When we find noteworthy articles from elsewhere on the Internet we make a concerted effort to get those articles in front of you. But be sure to go to the source to read more...

One thought on “Bernie Sanders' Best Moments Tonight Were on Foreign Policy

  1. Stephen L. Langlie

    Dear Editor:
    I watched the Democratic presidential debate in Milwaukee. Needless to say, I was appalled and shocked by the display of ignorance of the true history of the Middle East, most specifically Iran.

    For example, Senator Sanders went on a rant about how the US had deposed a democratically-elected Prime Minister in Iran in 1953, specifically Dr. Mossadegh, and had replaced him with a dictator, the Shah. This is completely false and total nonsense! Iran, back in the 1950’s, was a Constitutional Monarchy. The king (the Shah) had appointed Mossadegh to his position in 1951, so Mossadegh served with the consent of the king. The only elected body in Iran at the time was the parliament (the Majlis). During the early months of 1953, Mossadegh lost most of his domestic support because of incompetence and dictatorial conduct. Furthermore, Mossadegh became very cozy with the Communists (the Tudeh party). This greatly alarmed the Shiite clergy, and caused them to turn against Mossadegh. Finally, Mossadegh overruled the Majlis and grabbed dictatorial powers. This was the last straw. So, the Iranian people became fed up with Mossadegh and forced him out on 19 August 1953. Most unfortunately, Senator Sanders has swallowed all the false myths and legends that surrounds this event. There is an urgent need for him to educate himself, if he want to be a serious candidate for President.

    Why do I know these facts? I am an 82 year old military veteran who served in Iran from 1952 through 1955. So, I saw everything as it was happening, close up! I am currently writing my personal memoir on this service for the Eisenhower Presidential Library. Senator Sanders needs to educate himself with facts, not fairy tales.

    Sincerely,

    Stephen L. Langlie
    Chisago City, MN

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *