Home | About | Donate

Elizabeth Warren on War and Peace

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/07/26/elizabeth-warren-war-and-peace

1 Like

Another conveniently buried article.

Elizabeth Warren is so good on domestic affairs-- perhaps more specific and positive than anybody else. For the sake of that effort if for no other reason she must continue to evolve in foreign affairs.

But there is other reason of course. And that is that the United States, wherever it involves itself all over the world, needs to become more humane.

Another good idea, clearly, is that we draw back from the whole world a bit.


Warren should break with the “Washington Consensus” about US war-making. It would be consistent with her icon-crashing proposals for the economy. It’s time she cast her support to intelligent foreign policy. Think Honduras, Haiti, Iraq, Venezuela – all victims of warmongering US economic interests. Truth would be on her side.


The progressives’ favorite capitalist war-monger former Republican. Thank goodness she’s running for president and so is “evolving;” at least until she loses the nomination and can go back to being all in for for Israel.


Senator Warren’s work to regulate financial agencies is commendable. But like every politician she makes lofty promises during the campaign and they are rarely seen once the pol gets the job in government.

1 Like

Surely it’s late in the game to remake Warren as anti-war, though yeah, cholera is better than Biden.

She did oppose TPP, which is something.

1 Like

I’m going with the guy who has been saying the same thing for 50 years!! BERNIE!!!


A good critique of Warren’s positions. I have always liked her stand against Wall Street. Now she needs to come to understand the fraud of the war on terror and Israel’s role in it.


while I prefer Sanders foreign policy statements, I think Warren, with her greater depth of policy analysis would make a better President, and without Sanders baggage of youthful extreme socialist positions that the GOP would make hay out of if he were to be the nominee (plus his age, already 78) she would make a stronger candidate too. And the heading that she is “uncritical” of Israel is plain out wrong as the post itself shows, though she quite properly sees the need for Israel to defend itself against those who seek to eliminate it and kill or expel all the Jewish Israelis.

Warren was already made a fool of by Trump. She went and had the DNA test.

1 Like

Hillary Clinton was also “evolving” during her presidential campaign in the opposite direction of her actions while in office. Nobody should believe a politician’s statements during a campaign when their actions have shown otherwise.

Even Warren’s statements have left lots of room for ambivalence. For example on Syria and Afghanistan: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said she did not like the way President Trump announced the decision to withdraw troops from Syria, saying that foreign policy shouldn’t be conducted through Twitter, but said that she agrees that the U.S. should get troops out of Syria and Afghanistan. Warren, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said while speaking on MSNBC that she thinks it is “right to get out troops out of Syria” and Afghanistan, but said that withdrawal should be part of a “coordinated” plan. “And let me add, I think it is right to get our troops out of Afghanistan,” Warren said, citing how the U.S. military has been in the region for 17 years now. But she cautioned that "when you withdraw, you gotta withdraw as part of a plan, you gotta know what you’re trying to accomplish throughout the Middle East and the pieces need to be coordinated. "This is why we need allies. This is why we build alliances.”

All that gibberish gets to the point that perhaps now is not the right time to leave… we should leave sometime before Infinity (so as not to qualify as an endless war) and we need to build alliances to take over before leaving. That is the opposite of a definite timeline for withdrawal. Obama promised a timeline for withdrawal which is partly why he beat Clinton in 2008 who was suggesting waiting for generals to decide to leave. Once in office Obama delayed the promised withdrawal and left some forces behind.

Warren sounds very similar to Clinton in her approach by requiring a non- S.M.A.R.T. (Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant, Timebound) goal before withdrawal can be discussed. This is exactly how the endless wars are being waged.

Warren has been on the Senate Armed Services Committee since 2016: “All three of my brothers served in the military, and I understand the sacrifices America’s service members make to defend our country—and the important work that our Defense Department does to keep Americans safe,” she said in a statement. Warren said that as a member of the committee, she’ll focus on “making sure Congress provides effective support and oversight of the Armed Forces, monitors threats to national security, and ensures the responsible use of military force around the globe.”

In July 2017, Warren voted in favor of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act that grouped together sanctions against Iran, Russia and North Korea.


Warren is not for single-payer healthcare as this article incorrectly states. She has never said she would get rid of insurance companies.
Also a foreign policy in-between Sanders and Trump is a huge gap. She’s closer to Trump. She is one of the Democrats who voted to fund Trump’s bloated military budget of even more money than he asked for.
Her ‘stand against Wall Street’ consists soley of the CFPB, which has no teeth in it. http://archive.is/rq4Qv


Only one candidate has earned my trust, Bernie.

The author, Reese Erlich has two errors regarding Obama.
He did not initiate any new warfare in Iraq. He did leave behind about 10,000 lazy contract trainers to help create the shia army - which failed against only 300 teenage ISIS driving Toyota pick ups toward Bagdad for ice cream.
He did not invade Syria. Congress would not approve. We did provide weapons, ammunition, food to Kurds. They did the fighting and dying. Turkey got ticked and continued to allow young men from Europe and elsewhere safe passage into Syria to join ISIS.

“Did not invade”
A foreign country’s boots on the ground is not a major criterion for today’s warfare. Was it ever?
Training religious zealots in warfare and then letting them be unemployed.
Contractors galore. I attended a college job fair a few years back where war personnel contractors had more representation than the formal millitary.

If we have to talk second fiddle to Bernie, Reese, then please open the field a little more before you dump Warren on us.

I beg to differ. In 2014, after the Obama administration manipulated the Iraqi parliament to install a new prime minister the US sent 5000 regular troops to Iraq. That’s in addition to mercenary contractors. I call that a war.

Also in 2014 Obama sent US troops (“trainers”) to Syria after promising there would be “no boots on the ground.” The troop strength grew to 2000 and today remains about 1000.

Somehow in the US we’ve managed to redefine “war.” It’s only a war if enough Americans die and it costs a trillion dollars.

Thank you for your post.
the 5,000 american army soldiers in western Iraq at Syrian border had nothing to do with Iraq army training or Iraq government They were there to prevent ISIS expanding. Defense - show of force. They did not themselves fight against ISIS. The Kurds did.

Why it took USA two years to figure out how to cut off ISIS oil money income and three years to defeat irregular, undisciplined teens from Europe and central Asia is worth your study.

further, why did USA permit Turkey to keep the border open so these guys could travel into Syria. Against Assad may be part of the equation. Another part may be that by permitting them to congregate into one area, we can have them dispatched rather than spending the next 25 years tracking them down all over the middle east, europe and central asia.

The american contractors left behind FAILED to train the iraq shia army.

some second thoughts about 2014.
The 5,000 american army soldiers did not have congressional authority to enter the fray. They had no money allocated from congress, who refused to vote up or down. The president wisely put the call to war on them and did not ‘surge’ as general keane or bolton would do in a blink. The prez had learned his lesson with a 30,000 man army surge in afghanistan - losing 1,500 dead americans. Thank you, McChrystal, you scalliwag.
The Iraq government had shit bricks when 300 teens drove toward Bagdad. 4 or 5 hours of hit and run attacks by our contracts would have stopped them cold. the Iraq had helicopter gunships available also.

our local cemetery has one acre set aside for our war dead. I am praying that it always remains a green grass field in peace with no grave stones needed be applied there.