Bernie Sanders’ answers to The New York Times’ foreign policy survey have raised further questions about his “anti-war” foreign strategy. Longtime American peace activist Jan R. Weinberg suggests that Sanders hardly realises how dangerous US militarisation policies and practices in Eurasia and Asia Pacific are.
Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders, one of the favourites in Saturday’s Nevada caucuses, has long been regarded as a “peace candidate” who promotes an anti-interventionist foreign policy agenda.
In January, Sanders lashed out at President Donald Trump for killing Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani in Iraq calling it a “dangerous escalation” that “brings [the US] closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars.”
Additionally, the senator from Vermont, is known for his ardent opposition to the Iraq War unleashed upon the Middle Eastern country by George W. Bush under a false pretext in 2003: “I listened very carefully, and I concluded that they were lying through their teeth. And I not only voted against that war, but I helped lead the opposition,” Sanders recollected during the New Hampshire debate on 7 February.
However, The New York Times’ February foreign policy survey showed a different picture. When asked whether he would consider military force for a humanitarian intervention, the presidential candidate answered “yes”. And when the media wondered if he would…