This, the second postscript to US Foreign Policy Post 2016 Election underscores how unprepared, misdirected and dangerous US foreign Policy will be following the November 2016 elections.

Democrats

Clinton continues to wrap herself in an Obama cloak, her support for his sanctions on Russia and his needlessly provocative moves in the Baltic and East European countries. She also shows no remorse for her support of the Libyan debacle refusing to admit that the current turmoil and rise of ISIS in that country flow from her policy as Secretary of State.

With each Democrat debate it becomes ever clearer that a Clinton presidency would be just as confrontational with regard to Russia as the present administration, perhaps more so. She is a true believer in a US Empire that projects itself globally. As for the Middle East, she is just as vague and unrealistic as all the candidates, Republican and Democrat, espousing a unified Arab response to ISIS.

There isn’t much more to say about Sanders at this point. He remains just as disengaged and uninformed about foreign policy as ever. The only issue on which he was brought to life was Kissinger when he took Clinton to task for her mentoring by Kissinger who he described as war criminal. He also seems to attribute to Kissinger the loss of US jobs to China being a result of Kissinger’s role in opening up China. Would he have preferred that China not engage with the world?

Sanders should hope that there is not another terrorist incident in the United States or a serious international crisis between now and November. If there is, he will be open to justifiable criticism and a loss of support. That will show just how narrow his qualifications are for the presidency.

Republicans

The Republican candidates, one and all, pillory Russia and propose policies that could lead to a dangerous confrontation with Russia. No one says the US should go to war with Russia, but the policies they propose could well lead to a war.

Interesting that in last night’s debate about how to defeat ISIS, no one raised the Saudi proposal that Saudi Arabia put troops into Syria and base aircraft in Turkey. Another player in an already crowded arena. Not a good idea. The Saudis’ interest is not defeating ISIS it is bringing down Assad. If Turkey enters the fray with troops and air support, the conflict could go ballistic. Turkey would inevitably butt heads with the Russians in Syria. Turkey could then invoke Article Five calling for support from NATO against Russia. Welcome to WWIII.

The candidates have not mentioned the growing dispute between the US and Turkey regarding the Kurds. The US considers them allies in the fight against ISIS and Turkey accuses then of being terrorists. Turkey is more interested in defeating Assad and the Kurds than ISIS.

Reflecting on what all the candidates have said with respect to foreign policy, the future of the US is gloomy and worrying. A Trump-Sanders face-off in November would offer the US a foreign policy choice with two equally uninformed nominees.

Foreign Policy decisions in the case of President Sanders would probably be relegated to whoever is appointed as National Security Advisor and/or Secretary of State. However, dovish he is, Sanders would have to contend with a hawkish Republican congress.

As for President Trump, he is, as I wrote, a huge question mark who could be greatly influenced by the same Republican congressional hawks. However, considering that he has insulted and alienated the leading Republican hawks, Senators McCain and Graham, and former prisoners of war, I wonder how he would work with congress, the military and their allies. How would he work with anyone?

Baoluo