Democrats and Republicans offer voters bleak anti-war choices for 2024

Dems and Republicans offer supposedly anti-war candidates who have some pretty pro-war positions

After nearly a decade of two bloody wars under the Bush administration, it made perfect sense why so many of us desperately sought out an anti-war alternative during the 2008 presidential election. It also made sense why so many of us saw a young Barack Obama as that alternative. He said he would close the camp at Guantanamo, stop the US from torturing, and look into crimes committed under his predecessor. He even vowed to end the war in Iraq — a promise we could “take to the bank”.

Of course, none of these things actually happened once Obama was elected; in fact, by the time “anti-war” Obama left office, the US was bombing at least 7 countries, including Afghanistan and Iraq. Guantanamo remained open, the US continued to torture, and Obama insisted on “looking forward” instead of examining potential crimes carried out during the Bush years.

With public opinion steadily shifting against US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama’s legacy left behind a void for growing anti-war sentiments, and out of this void, the myth of “anti-war” Donald Trump was born.

“In his critique of the foreign policy of President George W. Bush unleashed in tonight’s GOP debate, Trump sounded not at all like a Republican but like the most radical anti-war activists of the early 21st century,” Jeet Heer over at New Republic wrote in 2016. “He said the Iraq war was a disaster which was sold by lies about weapons of mass destruction. When told that Bush kept America safe, Trump snorted, ‘How did George W. Bush keep us safe when the World Trade Center came down during his reign?’ Bush’s heterodoxy earned him boos from the audience, but might rally his legion of followers watching from home.”

Like Obama, Trump’s anti-war campaign rhetoric paid off and landed him a seat in the White House, where he then spent four years amping up the drone wars, pledging to steal Syria’s oil, and attempting to overthrow the Venezuelan government.

And like Obama, there were warning signs long before Trump was ever elected that made it abundantly clear he was not actually a peace candidate. For instance, while criticizing Bush’s wars, Trump often made comments about wanting to “bomb the hell out of ISIS” and about how much he “loves” waterboarding.

The red flags were always there with both Obama and Trump, and yet so many Americans still missed them. Sadly, history seems to be repeating itself with the upcoming 2024 presidential election.

After the first GOP debate in August, Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy emerged as a supposedly “anti-war” candidate after pledging to end the war in Ukraine and cut off US aid to Israel. While these things may sound good on paper to war weary Americans, the devil is, of course, in the details.

Digging a little deeper, we learn that Ramaswamy wants to end the war in Ukraine by somehow convincing Russia to give up its highly advantageous relationship with “our enemy” — China — and then refocusing the US war machine’s efforts on finding ways to counter their influence. And regarding Israel, his aid cuts wouldn’t take hold until 2028, and they’d only happen if Israel agreed to them.

Ramaswamy’s other hostile foreign policy positions include continuing to parrot debunked talking points about Iran’s nuclear weapons program, praising Israel’s murderous border policies, and vowing to launch airstrikes inside Mexico with or without the country’s permission.

Meanwhile, on the Democrat side, Robert F. Kennedy Jr and Marianne Williamson have commonly been labeled as anti-war candidates.

When Williamson first ran for president in 2020, she spoke of creating a “Department of Peace” to focus on “conflict resolution, restorative justice practices, police and social work programs, non-pharmaceutical mental health services, and other local peace-building efforts.”

Three years later, in February 2023, she wrote on Substack that she believes there is “legitimate justification for military support” in Ukraine from western allies, including the United States, while making sure to emphasize that this position doesn’t contradict her previous positions: “I view the US military much like a surgeon,” writes Williamson. “If we need a surgeon then America must have the best, but any reasonable person tries to avoid surgery if possible.”

Yes, the US military is like a surgeon — because surgeons are known to carry around toolkits filled with cluster bombs and depleted uranium.

Asked in March by ABC News at what point she would bring Russia to negotiate an end to the war, Williamson responded by saying “not right now” and justified her answer because Russian president Vladmir Putin “feels he's winning” and “that is why I support our policies at this time.”

“A withdrawal of US support from Ukraine at this point would not lead to peace,” she wrote on Substack in May. “It would lead to the most horrifying climax of the war. Russia would simply deliver its final brutal blow to Ukraine, pummeling it to the point where it would no longer exist as a separate nation.”

To Williamson, not supporting the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine means being pro-war. War is peace, right?

Other red flags surrounding Williamson’s supposedly “anti-war” candidacy include criticizing the 2021 US military withdrawal from Afghanistan, her apparent interest in waging economic warfare against China, and her claim that the 2003 US invasion of Iraq “emboldened” Iran, a country she has referred to as an “adversary”.

Similarly, Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s rhetoric on Iran also lines up with neocon hawks.

In June, RFK Jr tweeted that Iran “must not be allowed” to pursue nukes despite overwhelming evidence that their nuclear program is for civilian purposes. In that same post, RFK also criticized the Obama-era 2015 nuclear deal, which he called “outdated” and “not appropriate” for our time.

Equally disturbing, RFK Jr claims that Israel is “very disciplined” because it only attacks “military targets” — despite extensive documentation proving otherwise.

RFK Jr “regurgitates every lie, every racist trope, every distortion of history and every demeaning comment about the backwardness of the Palestinian people peddled by the most retrograde and far-right elements of Israeli society,” writes journalist Chris Hedges. “This alone discredits him as a progressive candidate. It calls into question his judgment and sincerity. It makes him another Democratic Party hack who dances to the macabre tune the Israeli government plays.”

Indeed, RFK’s ties to the Democratic Party run deep, and the candidates he has chosen to support should raise questions regarding his “anti-war” credentials.

Back in 2008, RFK was reportedly knocking on doors and campaigning for Obama. Four years later, as Obama was amping up wars in no fewer than seven countries, Kennedy again came out and defended his presidency: “A lot of people say, ‘OK, Obama didn’t deliver.’ Well, he didn’t deliver because he’s got a Congress like we haven’t seen before in American history,” he said.

In 2016, Kennedy endorsed Hillary Clinton, choosing to ignore her warmongering record as Obama’s Secretary of State, which included laughing about murdering Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and throwing the country into sheer chaos.

Ultimately, while the positions of presidential candidates such as Ramaswamy, Williamson, and RFK certainly doesn’t make them “as big of a warmonger” as other candidates like Biden and Trump, it’s hard to see why that matters considering their policies will still needlessly harm and kill people.

Choosing a peace candidate within the two major political parties is no longer a question of who is anti-war, but who is the most anti-war. It’s not about who won’t bomb, but instead about who will bomb less. Would you trade ending the war in Ukraine for starting a new war with Mexico? Would you prefer your candidate to create a “Department of Peace” in exchange for more bombs sent to Ukraine?

Unfortunately, there are no presidential candidates running on a consistent anti-war platform in either major party, effectively making the 2024 presidential election yet again a game of compromise. Sadly, in that compromise, innocent civilians around the world will be the biggest losers.