That look when you realize your general election opponent will be either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz (Yes the caption has nothing to do with the article)

My background. I was in the United States Navy from 2008-2014 and I currently work in D.C. so I fully acknowledge my personal bias in this matter, also I am a vocal Hillary Clinton supporter so I am providing this full disclosure up front.

Now this is a somewhat lengthy diary (at least it looks that way in the draft) and I do use full quotes from debate answers because I do not want to edit responses and leave doubts as to what was said. Also this idea that Senator Bernie Sanders does not support war at all as seen on this site multiple times is asinine as even in his opposition to Iraq in 2002, his reasons for not supporting it were mostly economic and the human cost also there was this line:

Third, the United States is now involved in a very difficult war against international terrorism as we learned tragically on September 11. We are opposed by Osama bin Laden and religious fanatics who are prepared to engage in a kind of warfare that we have never experienced before. I agree with Brent Scowcroft, Republican former National Security Advisor for President George Bush, Sr., who stated, “An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken.”

Foreign Policy is an interesting subject in this primary race because we have two very different opinions and expertise on the subject. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been involved in some form with foreign policy since 2003. Whether it is her time on the Senate Armed Services Committee or Secretary of State, she has worked with foreign policy. In contrast, Sen. Sanders has spent his entire time in the Senate and time in the House dealing with domestic issues. On the surface, this should benefit Sen. Sanders as foreign policy/terrorism is around 17% as the top issue for Democrats. However when you roll into the general election, about of general electorate say foreign policy/terrorism is a top concern.

This exchange from the most recent MSNBC debate is an interesting one in my opinion when asked about which of the three countries he feels is the biggest threat: Russia, North Korea, Iran. All bolding is mine

SANDERS: Clearly North Korea is a very strange situation because it is such an isolated country run by a handful of dictators, or maybe just one, who seems to be somewhat paranoid. And, who had nuclear weapons. And, our goal there, in my view, is to work and lean strongly on China to put as much pressure. China is one of the few major countries in the world that has significant support for North Korea, and I think we got to do everything we can to put pressure on China. I worry very much about an isolated, paranoid country with atomic bombs. I think, clearly, we got to work closely with China to resolve the serious problems we have, and I worry about Putin and his military adventurism in the Crimea and the Ukraine. TODD: Secretary of Defense Ash Carter this week picked one of those three, and he has said Russia is, basically, the most important national security threat. Sort of reorienting the defense and the challenges to that. Do you agree with his decisions... SANDERS: ... No, I don't. I worry very, very much about an isolated country. That's what makes me nervous. Russia lives in the world. China lives in the world. North Korea is a very, very strange country because it is so isolated, and I do feel that a nation with nuclear weapons, they have got to be dealt with. Dealt with effectively. TODD: Secretary Clinton, what do you think of Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. He's basically putting Russia above Iran, above North Korea, as sort of the chief national security challenge right now. CLINTON: I haven't talked to Secretary Carter, but here's what I would think he's planning. We do have the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, that's an enforcement consequence, action for action, follow on. We have a plan, we will watch them, we will be vigilant. We do have to worry about North Korea. They continue to develop their nuclear weapons capability, and they're working very hard on their ballistic missile capability. And, I know that some of those plans could very well lead to a missile that might reach Hawaii, if not the West Coast. We do have to try to get the countries in the region to work with us to do everything we can to confine, and constrain them. But, what Secretary Carter is looking at is the constant pressure that Russia's putting on our European allies. The way that Russia is trying to move the boundaries of the post-World War II Europe. The way that he is trying to set European countries against one another, seizing territory, holding it in Crimea. Beginning to explore whether they could make some inroads in the Baltics. We know that they are deeply engaged in supporting Assad because they want to have a place in the Middle East. They have a naval base, they have an air base in Syria. They want to hang on to that. I think what Secretary Carter is seeing, and I'm glad he is, is that we got to get NATO back working for the common defense. We've got to do more to support our partners in NATO, and we have to send a very clear message to Putin that this kind of belligerence, that this kind of testing of boundaries will have to be responded to. The best way to do that is to put more armor in, put more money from the Europeans in so they're actually contributing more to their own defense.

I think this response shows the difference in how both view the world abroad and the issues the United States will face. Sen. Sanders sees the world as everyone understands the rules but there’s this crazy guy in North Korea who can and will do anything and that scares him the most. Interestingly he had no real opinion on Iran. Sec. Clinton on the other hand explains that with current agreements she’s less worried about Iran, believes and contained for the most part while Russia is expanding. taking land from sovereign nations and building new bases in their allied nations.

Then we move forward to the recent PBS debate where the question comes are we ready and prepared to stop the next major domestic terrorist attack.

CLINTON: Look, I think we are readier than we used to be, but it’s a constant effort that has to be undertaken to make sure we are as ready as we need to be. We have made a lot of improvements in our domestic security since 9/11, and we have been able to foil and prevent attacks, yet we see the terrible attack in San Bernardino and know that we haven’t done enough. So we have to go after this both abroad and at home. We have to go after terrorist networks, predominantly ISIS — that’s not the only one, but let’s focus on that for a minute. We have to lead a coalition that will take back territory from ISIS. That is principally an American-led air campaign that we are now engaged in. We have to support the fighters on the ground, principally the Arabs and the Kurds who are willing to stand up and take territory back from Raqqa to Ramadi. We have to continue to work with the Iraqi army so that they are better prepared to advance on some of the other strongholds inside Iraq, like Mosul, when they are able to do so. And we have to cut off the flow of foreign funding and foreign fighters. And we have to take on ISIS online. They are a sophisticated purveyor of propaganda, a celebrator of violence, an instigator of attacks using their online presence. Here at home, we’ve got to do a better job coordinating between federal, state, and local law enforcement. We need the best possible intelligence not only from our own sources, but from sources overseas, that can be a real-time fusion effort to get information where it’s needed. But the final thing I want to say about this is the following. You know, after 9/11, one of the efforts that we did in New York was if you see something or hear something suspicious, report it. And we need to do that throughout the country. But we need to understand that American Muslims are on the front line of our defense. They are more likely to know what’s happening in their families and their communities, and they need to feel not just invited, but welcomed within the American society. So when somebody like Donald Trump and others... (APPLAUSE) ... stirs up the demagoguery against American Muslims, that hurts us at home. It’s not only offensive; it’s dangerous. And the same goes for overseas, where we have to put together a coalition of Muslim nations. I know how to do that. I put together the coalition that imposed the sanctions on Iran that got us to the negotiating table to put a lid on their nuclear weapons program. (APPLAUSE) And you don’t go tell Muslim nations you want them to be part of a coalition when you have a leading candidate for president of the United States who insults their religion. So this has to be looked at overall, and we have to go at it from every possible angle.

What makes Sec. Clinton’s answer is there are specifics of who is involved in the fight in Syria, what are the major areas to take back in the fight against ISIS and what ISIS is doing. There is detail and nuance there as well as an attack on the GOP front runner.

SANDERS: Let me just say this. What a president of the United States has got to do — and what is his or her major, I think, responsibility — is to, A, make certain that we keep our people safe, that we work with allies around the world to protect... ... president of the United States has got to do, and what is his or her major, I think, responsibility, is to, A, make certain that we keep our people safe. That we work with allies around the world to protect democratic values. That we do all that we can to create a world of peace and prosperity. I voted against the war in Iraq because I listened very carefully to what President Bush and Vice President Cheney had to say and I didn’t believe them. And if you go to my Web site,berniesanders.com, what you find is not only going to help lead the opposition to that war, but much of what I feared would happen when I spoke on the floor of the House, in fact, did happen in terms of the instability that occurred. Now I think an area in kind of a vague way, or not so vague, where Secretary Clinton and I disagree is the area of regime change. Look, the truth is that a powerful nation like the United States, certainly working with our allies, we can overthrow dictators all over the world. And God only knows Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. We could overthrow Assad tomorrow if we wanted to. We got rid of Gadhafi. But the point about foreign policy is not just to know that you can overthrow a terrible dictator, it’s to understand what happens the day after. And in Libya, for example, the United States, Secretary Clinton, as secretary of state, working with some other countries, did get rid of a terrible dictator named Gadhafi. But what happened is a political vacuum developed. ISIS came in, and now occupies significant territory in Libya, and is now prepared, unless we stop them, to have a terrorist foothold. But this is nothing new. This has gone on 50 or 60 years where the United States has been involved in overthrowing governments. Mossadegh back in 1953. Nobody knows who Mossadegh was, democratically-elected prime minister of Iran. He was overthrown by British and American interests because he threatened oil interests of the British. And as a result of that, the shah of Iran came in, terrible dictator. The result of that, you had the Iranian Revolution coming in, and that is where we are today. Unintended consequences. So I believe as president I will look very carefully about unintended consequences. I will do everything I can to make certain that the United States and our brave men and women in the military do not get bogged down in perpetual warfare in the Middle East.

Now the bolded part is understating a key point and not mentioning he was for a no-fly zone in Libya. The some other countries were all the countries of NATO, Jordan, Qatar, Sweden and UAE. So there were quite a few countries involved, if my math is correct it was almost three times as many as were involved in the Iraqi invasion in 2003. Also Sen. Sanders was a co-sponsor of the bill that encouraged the no-fly zone by the United Nations S. RES. 85

(7) urges the United Nations Security Council to take such further action as may be necessary to protect civilians in Libya from attack, including the possible imposition of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory;



One last instance of Sen. Sanders downplaying Sec. Clinton as a war hawk was this exchange from the PBS Debate regarding having diplomatic talks with non-friendly countries:

CLINTON: ... Senator Sanders, from a debate in 2008, quote what I said. The question was, would you meet with an adversary without conditions? I said no. And in fact, in Obama administration, we did not meet with anybody without conditions. That is the appropriate approach in order to get the results that you are seeking. (APPLAUSE) SANDERS: No, I think the idea was that president — then-Senator Obama was wrong for suggesting that it is a good idea to talk to your opponents. It’s easier to talk to your friends. It’s harder to talk to your enemies. I think we should do both. (APPLAUSE)

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was involved in the process to get Iran to the negotiating table and had a hand in the New START with Russia which limits both Russia and the United States nuclear arsenal so it is disingenuous to say the Sec. Clinton is against talking to non-friendly countries at all.

Now why does this all matter, it does not today. Foreign Policy and Terrorism are generally not big priorities for Democratic voters. And there are a lot of reasons for that, in my opinion. Democrats, generally, care more about economic fairness, social issues, and we do not have any type of unified foreign policy vision. There are some in the party who are 100% peace all the time and would like to pull back all deployed military members, close foreign bases and become an isolationist country. Then there are some who want to use our military to ensure there are no ruthless dictator-like foreign leaders anywhere in the world and most of the part falls somewhere in-between there. However once the general election season really starts the number of voters who care about foreign policy/terrorism jumps from (guesstimating numbers based on various polls here) 15% to 80%. We clearly know where Sec. Clinton stands on foreign policy (and many think she’s way more hawkish than she really is) and we sort of have an idea on where Sen. Sanders stands (and a few think he’s less hawkish than he is) but we do not have a clear picture on what Sen. Sanders thinks on how to accurately handle current world problems. His current ISIS plan is to continue to do what President Obama is currently doing with air strikes and special operations forces on the ground. He wants a diplomatic approach with North Korea and Iran. He wants to have a new NATO-like coalition that includes the U.S., Russia, current NATO countries, and the Arab League. These are broad goals but no real way to implement some of them. He has no known foreign policy adviser to speak of, as of now, who would help him craft an actual plan that he can talk to the American people about prior to the conclusion of the primary election. He has talked about his Georgetown speech about Democratic Socialism but again there is more general-isms and not specifics. And while Senator Barack Obama did not have too much of a foreign policy background, he was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and had a foreign policy team in place over a year prior to the election. I do hope Sen. Sanders will eventually put some effort into understanding foreign policy and set up a team of foreign policy advisers. I will vote for the Democratic nominee no questions asks in November, however I would feel WAYYYYYY more comfortable with the idea of President Bernie Sanders if he would put forth his own comprehensive foreign policy plan to deal with ISIS, Syria, Iraq, Russia, North Korea, and China.