Home | About | Donate

Where Is the Democratic Alternative to Forever War?

Where Is the Democratic Alternative to Forever War?

Danny Sjursen

There sure are lots to choose from. By now, more than 20 candidates have announced a run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.


“Where is Democratic [Party] alternative to war?” There is none. The first step is to become disillusioned, that is, to be without illusions. In the 20th century it was the Democrats that were the war party: they either initiated or were heavily involved with more wars and military adventures than the GOP - by a wide margin. They are not the party of peace - despite Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize (that he got before he took office, btw.) Part of the aim of Russiagate is to put the Dems back in the war horse saddle.


So, unless our future 2020 Democratic nominee can effectively articulate an alternative to war and Trump’s bellicosity, then Trump will win.

Absolutely, effectively articulating an alternative to militarism and war is crucial. And it can’t be weak whiny talk either. This is something that dems and progressives need to practice on. Build those articulation skills, sound bites and don’t beat around the bush about it!


Since I was a child, I would hear the worn out trope that such and such candidate is “weak on defence”. That usually translated as to how the candidate did not tow the MIC line to the satisfaction of the hawks in Congress. No one ever seemed to label a candidate though that was “weak on peace” as peace was never an option for any corporate sponsored politician.
Even though the vast majority of Americans would be happy if the U.S. closed every single base around the world, ended all of their current wars, never sold a weapon abroad again and abandoned this evil policy of promoting “regime change”, almost every politician is terrified of proposing what the 99% want. It is a testament to how entrenched the establishment is.
Perhaps this is why we constantly hear that Americans are most concerned with domestic polices rather than foreign affairs. Could it be that the average American instinctively knows that politicians will always ignore the will of the people when it comes to foreign policies? In any case, the ignorance of most Americans when it comes to the ‘strategic interests’ of the United States and how corporate America calls the shots, makes it difficult for any American politician to side with the underdogs. For example the average American really does believe at some level that Iranians are a bunch of crazies trying to get nuclear weapons or that the Venezuelans live under the thumb of a brutal dictator. While all of these falsehoods are a result of a manufactured narrative designed to reinforce the status quo, it still means that most Americans have a lot of catching up to do before they can really grasp the horror of our governments treatment of countries that are on the official ‘hit list’ of D.C.
Unfortunately any future progressive president will probably have to keep their mouth shut about foreign policy until after they have been elected and therefore we will be subjected to the same ole accusations of… “They’re weak on Defence” instead of… “Where’s the Peace dividend?”


For sure, I’ve had my share of disagreements with Sjursen and I would grade the candidates, differently, as I’m sure everyone would (Biden a B? Give me a break.), but I strongly agree with Sjursen’s main point on how endless war and foreign policy as issues have received so little attention. It’s a complaint I’ve been making since the very beginning of this parade of Democratic hopefuls began. At this point, I remain unconvinced that any of the candidates is willing or able to change the party as being just another flavor of the War Party. After all, being “strong on defense” is part of the party platform.


The title suggests that the damnocrats are an “opposition party” when, in fact, all they oppose is a cut in their bribes from the weapons-makers and other parts of the war-mongering machine of which the U.S. government is a major part.


I agree completely. The writer must be in the neo-damnocrats’ pockets also.


Forever wars? At least until nukes are used…

The only way Dems can win is if they enlist the young by embracing the Green New Deal.

Bernie is the only candidate that can beat Trump. Running Creepy Joe is a sure loss… not that the centrists care as long as the bribes roll in.


Good post Space_cadet.

Its the average American conservative ignoramus and neoliberal sellouts that buy into the propaganda and join the system.


I wish I had your confidence. But we have seen what the criminals can get away with…RIGHT OUT FRONT TOO! (Hint: 2016 damnocrat primary)


The 2016 Dem California primary vote theft from Bernie Sanders was especially instructive and egregious …but there is no change from the DINO Party establishment in control. The DINO establishment was and is responsible for the trump regime nightmare and the Dem “elite” are right on-track to repeat their astonishing betrayal and arrogant frauds!

The line-up of DINO Dem wannabe candidates is designed to dilute Sanders power, especially the “most progressive” candidate Smiley-Joe Biden, at least in his own neo-liberal empty mind - the DINO establishment’s 2020 Hillary…too bad we have no real (and viable) opposition party.


Right you are! They have a golden opportunity staring them in the face, but can’t seem to see it. Someone needs to say: “It’s the wars, stupid”!

No matter what issue one cares most about, the fact is that that our existing (and planned) wars are sucking all the air from the room.


Man, I wish I’d had Prof. Sjursen grading my papers in college

'Cause I’d “F” 'em all.


I have really appreciate Danny’s posts in TruthDig where he digs deeper than the official narrative on American history and reveals the imperialism, racism, xenophobia, and corruption of so many heroes.

So I am greatly disappointed to see him believing the offical narrative on Tulsi.

Over on TruthDig, where this article first was published, the comments section was filled with posters explaining how this narrative on Tulsi is not true.

What I want to say that when Danny references that Nation article on Tulsi to move her from the A+++ she should get to a B, the same level as war mongering Biden, he may not realize that the author, Evan Hill, is a ‘liberal interventionist’ who spouts all the offical lies about Syria and Assad and obviously hates Tulsi for opposing the regime change war in Syria.

All the garbage that Hill cites to prove that Tulsi is a supporter of Hindu fascists and is an Islamophobe are shallow and have long ago been shown to be nothing but smears.

Over there I asked Danny to dig deeper. I won’t here because I doubt he’ll read these comments (I think he might read those.)

But I’m very disappointed that so many doing the grading of the candidates on important subjects are down grading Tulsi. Here Danny, who is so right on when he talks about American militarism in the past, lets smears down grade the only candidate who actually has said simply Hands Off Venezuela and to stop these regime change wars. Earlier Media Benjamin also didn’t realize how good Tulsi is. Another person didn’t grade her as highly as she deserves on the Environment when she actually has a strong bill, the OFF Act, that is better than the Green New Deal.

I don’t think these folk are trying to smear her. I think they just have been too influenced by the smears to see clearly. Those smears are so persuasive because the establisment Democratic Party structure despises her because 1) She called them out in 2016 for their bias and resigned from the DNC to stand up for Bernie, and 2) She opposes their regime change wars and Imperialism.

It’s sad that someone who says they do have a bias for Bernie and is anti-war would still be influenced by the smears against her because she is against war and stood up for Bernie when hardly anyone else would.


Good job, Maj!

While I do not think the Maj is in anyone’s pocket, I do agree with your statement with that Clinton puppet, Biden. I will vote Green again if Biden is the nominee.

1 Like

Bernie, after being cheated by the Clinton’s and the DNCC, threw his popularity behind Clinton. That did it for me. I will not trust him again and vote for Bernie (I voted J. Stein). Tulsi is my choice; but, she really has no experience and her appointments would not be hers, rather they would be the DNCC’s. So who, then? Right now, I do not know.

1 Like

I agree with you completely Emphyrio, especially “The line-up of DINO Dem wannabe candidates is designed to dilute Sanders power”. Corporate democrats are trying to marginalize and ignore Bernie while simultaneously declaring a new ‘love child’ like Beto or Joe every few weeks via a tightly controlled media blitz. Throwing something against the wall hoping that something will eventually stick.
Obviously I’m hoping that the outcome will be different this time around and progressives will co-op the Democratic party in the end, but after numerous, successive fiascos, how likely is that?


Only BERNIE SANDERS voted against BOTH Iraq wars, and has led the Senate against the Yemen massacre and the impending Iran disaster.

Campaign for Bernie, our only hope, domestic and foreign, against the mob of corpo-dems.


Yes, the Dems are a war party,


“Today, we say to the military-industrial-complex that we will not continue to spend $700 billion a year on the military — more than the next 10 nations combined,” the White House hopeful told the crowd. “We’re going to invest in affordable housing, we’re going to invest in public education, we’re going to invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure — not more nuclear weapons and never-ending wars.”

Bernie’s first campaign speech in Brooklyn.