0 Shares 0



0

0







The 2016 elections have opened up considerable room to discuss the critical issue of inequality inside of the US. Democratic Party hopeful Bernie Sanders and Republican nominee Donald Trump have boosted their popularity in this election cycle by criticizing Wall Street's control over the US economy. This is a significant change from the past two election periods when not even a capitalist economic crisis could compel the Obama Administration to challenge the rule of the rich. However, those who are excited about this moment in US history should proceed with caution. When it comes to war, the 2016 elections have stayed true to Washington's war consensus.

Washington wages war in many forms. All forms of war have been expanded and sponsored by the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration has an extensive track record ofstaging coups, bombingAfrican countries, andarming jihadiststo overthrow sovereign governments in the Middle East. The Obama administration also expanded the reach ofdrone warfare, deportation, anddomestic surveillance in both terms. In other words, the Obama presidency has been a war presidency from start to finish.

Eight years of rule under the Obama Administration has only strengthened the war consensus in Washington. Hillary Clinton, the likely nominee for the Democratic Party, served as President Obama's Secretary of State from 2009-2013. During this time, Clinton spearheaded the effort to overthrow the Libyan government in 2011. She also was implicated in the 2009 coup in Honduras. Her reign as Secretary of State built upon an already extensive record of war, which included the co-sign of the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In her 2016 election campaign, Clinton has promised to escalate all of Obama's wars and keep Washington along the war path toIran,Russia, andChina.

The most left-leaning candidate in the elections, Bernie Sanders, has attempted to frame himself as a peace candidate in order to differentiate himself from the rest of the pack. However, his track record deviates little from the Washington consensus on war. Sanders supported theUS invasion of Afghanistanin 2001. He also backed the1999 NATO bombing campaignof Yugoslavia. During his 2016 Presidential campaign, Sanders has been careful to challenge the Democratic Party's long list of war crimes under Obama. In arecent town hall meeting, Sanders made clear the he supports the Obama Administration's "kill list" and deployment of US Special Forces to Syria.

The one candidate that has spoken out against US foreign policy in the 2016 elections is Donald Trump. Trump has come out against Washington's bloated military budget. He has framed his opposition to military ventures with an "America First" orientation. Under such a framework, Trump has questioned theUS role as the police force of the world generally and NATO specifically. Trump's foreign policy rhetoric has captivated the majority of the white Republican Party base with promises to invest in America instead of elsewhere.

However, as Eric Draitsorexplains, Trump's anti-war rhetoric does not absolve him from complicity in the Washington consensus on war. His proposed foreign policy team consists of Israel Lobbyist Walid Phares, NATO advocate Jeff Sessions, and former inspector general of George W. Bush's Defense Department Joe Schmitz. Trump himself has announced his intention ofinvading Syria and Iraqwith ground troops as his primary strategy to eradicate ISIS. So while Trump has indeed attempted to rhetorically distance himself from the neo-conservative fraction of the GOP, a Trump Presidency is simply incapable of shifting US foreignpolicy away from endless global warfare.

The reality is that service to the US war machine is a requirement of the presidency. Washington is controlled by the interlocked interests of private military contractors, Wall Street banks, and multinational corporations. The primary purpose of war is to open up new markets or destroy old ones no longer favorable to the profit-seeking interests of these institutions. Washington's relationship with Saudi Arabia is instructive in this regard. Washington annually signsmultibillion dollar agreementswith the Saudi monarchy that include the trade of US arms in exchange for oil. This oil is then refined and used on the production lines of US multinational corporations.

Each and every dollar of the current 598 billion dollars the US spends on defense is used to create a more favorable environment for US capital. The US has over750 military basesaround the world. Through institutions such as NATO and AFRICOM, the US military has a foot print in every corner of the globe. Its presence is at the root of much of the suffering around the world. This can be readily seen through the thousands of Middle Eastern and North Africanlives taken by drone strikes and theproliferation of drug traffickingin Colombia and Peru despite the presence of US troops.

US Presidents cannot be relied on to scale back the US war machine. Only a social movement can put the adequate pressure on Washington to make it think twice before moving forward with its war plans. But war is deeply woven in the fabric of US capitalist society. Under capitalism, peace is a barrier to profit. Any movement serious about ending the US war machine must also be serious about replacing a capitalist system that places profit over human needs with its exact opposite: socialism.