Home | About | Donate

Dem Debate on Foreign Leaves More Questions Than Answers


Dem Debate on Foreign Leaves More Questions Than Answers

Juan Cole

Foreign policy came up a bit in the Democratic Party debate.


Excellent points by Juan Cole, as usual. Why don't we see this and many other columns by him in the Washington Post, New York Times and other Establishment outposts? You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to guess the answer to that: Sometimes too much truth is just too hard for the Establishment to take -- or permit others to learn. In any case, I often am appalled at how ignorant some of our major politicians and candidates are about foreign policy, and I'm by no means an expert myself. It's incredible that Clinton and Sanders and the others would buy into the right-wing myth that a substantial force of "moderates" is fighting against Assad in Syria. That's strictly a Fox News fantasy, but it keeps resurfacing. Even a layman can learn the truth quickly by browsing the works of Cole and other real experts on the Mideast, but our politicians apparently don't bother to do that. I suspect that they take the word of the "experts" serving as national security advisors and assistants, who usually come from the many war-industry-funded think tanks in D.C. Many of those advisers apparently try to outdo each other in foaming at the mouth like a bunch of latter-day Dick Cheney aides circa 2003. The Republicans are professional knuckle-draggers, but our Democratic officials and candidates need to wise up and work with Russia and Iran instead of trying to reignite the Cold War. We can't afford that stuff anymore.


Readers might want to check out Jill Stein's comments aired on today's Democracy Now Program.

Essentially, Ms. Stein uses a variation on Einstein's famous quote--"that no problem can be solved from the level of thinking that brought the problem about"--to chastise those (Hillary, included) who would argue for using the same strategy that led to ISIS... as means to allegedly remedy it (away).

"The 2011-2012 coalition on the ground, the Free Syrian Army, to which Sec. Clinton refers here, has long since collapsed, and a Pentagon attempt to revive it just crashed and burned. So I’m not sure why Sen. Clinton thinks this is still a policy option. Many FSA units joined Daesh/ ISIL. Others have been defeated by the Army of Conquest, a hard line Salafi group spearheaded by al-Qaeda in Syria."

Jill Stein was the only one, albeit not invited to the TV debate, to truly come down on militarism as antithesis to solution to a variety of global woes. I am still advocating for Mr. Sanders since he's the best shot at some key changes given the gridlock of the system that's now in place to serve the 1% all of the time.


As a rule of thumb, I will not vote for any candidate that takes Big Money bribes.


Why does the US have to be subservient to the demands of the Saudis and Israelis that Asad must go? Why not act in our own (US) interests instead?
We could work with Russia, defeat the terrorists, with a concrete plan in place for new elections when order has been restored?


Don't miss the opportunism that this displays.

Don't miss how this line of thinking is leading us to fantasize about what's really going on in the minds of those we plan to choose as political leaders.

Doing truck with either is dangerous territory.