Democrats Unveil Draft Foreign Policy Platform With Promises to End “Forever Wars”, “Regime Change"

[Drop Billionaires, Not Bombs]

New draft text of the Democratic Party’s 2020 platform calls for bringing “forever wars to a responsible end” and pledges to end the U.S. role in the conflict in Yemen — a sharp reversal from the Obama administration’s policy of arming and assisting the Saudi-led intervention.

The 80-page text, first reported by the Washington Post, is a sign of how far the party’s center of gravity has shifted in four years. The draft was released Tuesday evening to the more than 150-member platform committee for an amendment process. It will likely be ratified at the 2020 Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee next month.

With lengthy sections on racial justice, immigration, climate change, and health care, the document hews closely to many of the policy recommendations produced by a Biden-Sanders unity effort earlier this month. But that unity report largely left out foreign policy, which is where some of the Democratic platform draft’s most significant departures from the 2016 platform lie.

“I think the platform shows that they’ve taken a number of important progressive foreign policy priorities on board,” said Matt Duss, foreign policy adviser for Sen. Bernie Sanders. “There’s a lot to celebrate here, both in terms of where the party is moving on these issues, and of a broader unifying vision for the country.”

The draft text includes a section on scaling back the military’s involvement in Afghanistan and counterterrorism operations around the world. The text says Democrats support a “durable and inclusive political settlement in Afghanistan” that prevents Al Qaeda from sheltering in the country, and pledges to “right-size our counterterrorism footprint,” including by working with Congress to repeal use-of-force authorizations which presidents including Barack Obama have cited as an expanding legal basis for counterterrorism actions in many different countries. As vice president and on the campaign trail, Joe Biden has argued that the U.S. should reduce its military presence in Afghanistan while maintaining a role for special operations.

The Intercept

[brucejoel99]

Good news, but obligatory "ew, the Intercept."

[Horus]

It's a start. But I'll believe it when I see it and it's still nowhere near dovish enough.

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

I hope this is the start of meaningful change within the party. We don’t need two parties which want America to be the police officer of the world.

[Ferguson97]

I hope Biden doesn't make the mistake of a non-interventionist platform.

[Pyro]

Suggesting a commitment to end the wars is positive news - obviously.
However, considering Tony Blinken and Samantha Power are on the Biden team, color me skeptical.

[Drop Billionaires, Not Bombs]

I hope Biden doesn't make the mistake of a non-interventionist platform.

If he doesn't, he will alienate the majority of Americans and Democrats who got him and Obama elected in the first place.  Neocons and liberal internationalists are a dying breed.

[Mr. Smith]

Like everything else Biden, puttop or shuttop.

[Ferguson97]

I hope Biden doesn't make the mistake of a non-interventionist platform.

If he doesn't, he will alienate the majority of Americans and Democrats who got him and Obama elected in the first place.  Neocons and liberal internationalists are a dying breed.

It shouldn't matter what's popular, it should matter what's right.

The alternative to liberal internationalism is an all-powerful China.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

I largely agree with this platform. However, as mentioned by Ferguson97, the United States should absolutely not cede our influence in the world to China (or potentially Russia). Influence = power.

We should get out of Afghanistan and not partake in regime change around the world. However, we absolutely should remain steadfast and vigilant in standing up to China and Russia. Some of you want the US to become quasi-isolationist and that would be a foolish decision.

[Drop Billionaires, Not Bombs]

I largely agree with this platform. However, as mentioned by Ferguson97, the United States should absolutely not cede our influence in the world to China (or potentially Russia). Influence = power.

We should get out of Afghanistan and not partake in regime change around the world. However, we absolutely should remain steadfast and vigilant in standing up to China and Russia. Some of you want the US to become quasi-isolationist and that would be a foolish decision.

We can stand up to China and Russia without spreading our tentacles to uninhabitable wastelands or answering to Israel and the Saudis unquestionably.  Shutting down unnecessary military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations through military threats and violence is not isolationism, it is the opposite.

[NewYorkExpress]

Here's the thing. We should be supporting regime change in Russia, if not out right trying to make it happen.

Everywhere else, Get the Hell Out!

[Alben Barkley]

I hope this is the start of meaningful change within the party. We don’t need two parties which want America to be the police officer of the world.

With great power comes great responsibility. Fact of the matter is the US is the most powerful nation in the world and thus has a certain obligation to prevent weaker countries from being stomped on by illiberal regimes like China and Russia. And, where possible, to take action to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide (e.g. Kosovo). Now, that doesn’t mean we should be doing the stomping ourselves, and it doesn’t mean our intervention always has to even take the form of military force, which should be a last resort. Most of the legitimate criticisms of our foreign policy stem from our failures in these regards. But at the same time, common isolationist/non-interventionist lines like “America shouldn’t be the world’s police!” are over-simplistic. It would be immoral as well as impractical for America to simply withdraw from world affairs and let the chips fall where they may. That WOULD lead to the likes of China and Russia filling the vacuum, which most of the world definitely does not want.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I largely agree with this platform. However, as mentioned by Ferguson97, the United States should absolutely not cede our influence in the world to China (or potentially Russia). Influence = power.

We should get out of Afghanistan and not partake in regime change around the world. However, we absolutely should remain steadfast and vigilant in standing up to China and Russia. Some of you want the US to become quasi-isolationist and that would be a foolish decision.

We can stand up to China and Russia without spreading our tentacles to uninhabitable wastelands or answering to Israel and the Saudis unquestionably.  Shutting down unnecessary military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations through military threats and violence is not isolationism, it is the opposite.

I don't think any of us are disagreeing with you, but rather, we are reiterating the importance of having America actively support liberal democracy on the world's stage. We can find a point in between global policeman USA and fortress USA to promote our values and ensure peace.

[Alben Barkley]

Anyway, as for the political (rather than policy) considerations here, it’s probably true that these stances are more popular with most of the public nowadays. And they are carefully worded enough that they don’t signal to me any sort of extreme non-interventionist stance or anything, just a pledge to step back a bit. That’s fair enough and is likely popular/mainstream enough nowadays to not be an electoral issue. Trump ran on something of an isolationist platform himself. I have no doubt that Biden personally is still a committed liberal internationalist, and will be far better than Trump on foreign policy. That’s what matters most. Party platform doesn’t actually matter at all, and nobody reads it. So I don’t really care that the Bernie wing seems to be writing it as anticipated. Biden knows it’s not a binding contract, and I hope most progressives understand the purpose of platform is to set ideal stances more than concrete goals.

[doc gerritcole]

We cannot and should not be the worlds policeman, frankly the money could be better spent domestically rather than abroad, we cannot impose our values anymore, we should take advantage of our geographical location and stay out of conflict.

[GoTfan]

I'm an internarionalist.

There is a vast difference between using your army to force your country's will on a populace that doesn't want it, and a liberal internationalism involving working within the UN, utilising the diplomatic corps to the fullest extent, and giving primacy to the state department over defence.

[LtNOWIS]

We cannot and should not be the worlds policeman, frankly the money could be better spent domestically rather than abroad, we cannot impose our values anymore, we should take advantage of our geographical location and stay out of conflict.

This idea that the US can be a fortress behind its two ocean boundaries died over 100 years ago, when we got populated territories in the Western Pacific.

[Storebought]

I support this completely. Forget the Middle East -- the US needs to engage in nation building at home, in every respect (health care, infrastructure, government institutions and voting procedures, basic literacy, etc.).

The alternative to liberal internationalism is an all-powerful China.

If democracies need financial and political support against an aggressive China, let the EU (Germany) support them. Germany has a higher credibility on the matter in any case.

[Red Willow]

No one will believe Biden of all people wants to end wars.

[Ferguson97]

We cannot and should not be the worlds policeman, frankly the money could be better spent domestically rather than abroad, we cannot impose our values anymore, we should take advantage of our geographical location and stay out of conflict.

Your choices are America as the world's police or China. And yes, it IS a binary choice. If we don't take the responsibility, China will. And they will not promote liberal democracy.

[KWRAE 86.47]

I largely agree with this platform. However, as mentioned by Ferguson97, the United States should absolutely not cede our influence in the world to China (or potentially Russia). Influence = power.

We should get out of Afghanistan and not partake in regime change around the world. However, we absolutely should remain steadfast and vigilant in standing up to China and Russia. Some of you want the US to become quasi-isolationist and that would be a foolish decision.

America is already a dying empire. P***ing away tens of billions a year on military vacation spots around the world that we could be spending on Americans in America is just making the problem worse. We've already ceded our academic institutions to China. Our electoral infrastructure is highly vulnerable and worse, our media and social networks have proven to be very susceptible to propaganda and I don't see any fixes coming.

America killed itself with the trillions it blew on the military while China built itself up in a very short time. We'll never get those resources back, but the best thing is an immediate and severe reduction in that percentage of the budget, along with taxing the absurdly rich much more. That's the only way America can reverse the falling domestic standards of the past few decades.

[Storebought]

We cannot and should not be the worlds policeman, frankly the money could be better spent domestically rather than abroad, we cannot impose our values anymore, we should take advantage of our geographical location and stay out of conflict.

Your choices are America as the world's police or China. And yes, it IS a binary choice. If we don't take the responsibility, China will. And they will not promote liberal democracy.

Let the EU do it.

[KWRAE 86.47]

I largely agree with this platform. However, as mentioned by Ferguson97, the United States should absolutely not cede our influence in the world to China (or potentially Russia). Influence = power.

We should get out of Afghanistan and not partake in regime change around the world. However, we absolutely should remain steadfast and vigilant in standing up to China and Russia. Some of you want the US to become quasi-isolationist and that would be a foolish decision.

We can stand up to China and Russia without spreading our tentacles to uninhabitable wastelands or answering to Israel and the Saudis unquestionably.  Shutting down unnecessary military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations through military threats and violence is not isolationism, it is the opposite.

I don't think any of us are disagreeing with you, but rather, we are reiterating the importance of having America actively support liberal democracy on the world's stage. We can find a point in between global policeman USA and fortress USA to promote our values and ensure peace.

Lol, what an absolute joke.

America has never promoted peace in its history.

It blew up hospitals and weddings in the middle east.

It deposed democratically elected leaders on a regular basis because they were terrified of socialism, only to have them replaced by far-right dictators like Pinochet and Carlos Castillo Armas.

And frankly it makes me laugh that the supposed greatest and most powerful country in the world  is in massive, massive debt to pay to "stand up" to post-Soviet Russia and China, which 40 years ago was a largely agrarian society with a GDP per capita lower than many African nations. And now they own a big chunk of that debt, while we have absolutely nothing to show for our arrogance and great wasting of resources, except the decline of our domestic standards in the meantime.

[KWRAE 86.47]

We cannot and should not be the worlds policeman, frankly the money could be better spent domestically rather than abroad, we cannot impose our values anymore, we should take advantage of our geographical location and stay out of conflict.

Your choices are America as the world's police or China. And yes, it IS a binary choice. If we don't take the responsibility, China will. And they will not promote liberal democracy.

Imagine thinking America promotes liberal democracy.