Isaiah 2:4–5 (NKJV)

 . . .  They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

— Isaiah 2:4

 

I used to read The New York Times Sunday Opinion section pretty thoroughly, but in the past couple of years I’ve backed away. I needed to escape the repetitious flow of outrage that only served to remind me of what was already making me angry. Yesterday, though, my wife Lucy suggested that I read a particular essay by Ben Rhodes, former Deputy National Security adviser to President Barack Obama. It concerned the message that Graham Platner, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate from Maine, is sending to his would-be constituents concerning our national penchant for wars of choice. I urge you to read it: 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/22/opinion/graham-platner-forever-war-trump.html. 

 

Platner unequivocally calls on Democrats to reject war as an instrument of foreign policy,  and he does so from the high ground of experience. He served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and saw firsthand the toll wars took on innocent civilians. Rhodes, who had a ringside seat for most of our 21st century wars, agrees with him. And so do I. So why can’t the Democratic Party unequivocally take that stance, unequivocally embrace the idea of becoming the anti-war party?

Rhodes suggests some reasons:

 

• The power of the big corporate lobbies (Big Oil, Big Gas, Defense Contractors, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), etc.) All benefit from a hawkish foreign policy. And AIPAC has the added weapon of labeling as antisemitic any politician who opposes Netanyahu’s super-hawkish policies even though many Israelis oppose them.
• Fear of being called weak. In a country that venerates manliness, many Democratic politicians seem afraid of appearing weak on terrorism. They are timid about telling the truth — that our war-mongering has created more terrorists than the madrassas of the Mideast. 
• Fear of the very label “anti-war.”  Democratic pols avoid saying they’re anti-war lest some new attack somewhere in the world makes their stance  unpopular for a news cycle or two. They seem to equate anti-war with being leftist, which would be unpopular with our right-of-center electorate. But Rhodes points out that “in each Presidential election since 2004, with the possible exception of 2020, the candidate who declared himself most committed to ending and avoiding wars has won.”

 

Then Rhodes does something I wish editorial writers did more often. He prescribes what an anti-war foreign policy platform would look like. And he does so with specificity. Oh, how I wish the Democratic Party would embrace his suggestions. Here they are, paraphrased. 

 

• End the forever war decisively by rescinding the post-9/11 authorization for the president to deploy the military around the world without congressional authorization.
• Commit to going to war only in self-defense and with congressional authorization.
• Slash the defense budget significantly.
• Bring home the thousands of U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East.
• End all military assistance to Israel for as long as it remains committed to territorial expansion and is hostile to international law.
• Restrict the use of AI in autonomous weapons and mass surveillance.

 

I would add a few additional platform planks that aren’t nearly as important as Rhodes’ six. 

 

• Rename the Department of War. Revert to the Department of Defense.
• Stop using the term “warriors” or “war fighters” when referring to soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines. Call them what we always called them before the thirst for blood began to taint our defense establishment. 
• In the event of unavoidable conflict — if we are attacked without provocation, for instance — make it our policy to cite how many civilians we have killed each time our own casualties are cited. 
• Stop flying military aircraft over public sporting events. 
• Make it a firing offense for any military leader to conflate Christianity or any other religion with U.S. combat operations, as if it goes without saying that the U.S. war machine always has God on its side. (God’s position on war is best expressed in the biblical quotation at the top of this blog.)

 

Now that Trump can no longer pretend to oppose foreign wars, it’s high time for  Democrats to claim an anti-war doctrine unapologetically and unreservedly. It is not only the right thing to do but also the moral thing to do. In the Iran war, the U.S. and Israel have killed more than 6,000 Iranians and Lebanese simply because we could get away with it. Yet our country is barely inconvenienced by the carnage. Our Secretary of War refused to apologize for obliterating 165 Iranian school children; we refuse to let our country’s war-making interrupt our everyday pleasures. Yes, gas prices have gone up here; in Iran, by contrast, the homes of innocent civilians have been blown to smithereens.

 

Left-leaning Democrats are often criticized for weakening the party’s  election prospects by insisting their candidates pass ideological purity tests. Maybe it’s time for a brand new purity test that could be turned to the party’s advantage — a simple one with no ifs, ands or buts. It would say the Democratic Party will henceforth oppose any war of aggression by the U.S. Democratic candidates for House and Senate seats wouldn’t harp about high gas prices when they castigate Trump for his war of choice. Instead, they would remind us of the 6,000-plus deaths — mostly civilians, including many children — blasted away by our bombs, missiles and drones. They would pound home the message that the war against Iran (like earlier wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) is immoral to its core and stick to that message even if gas prices go to $6 per gallon.

 

Many will say, “Well, what about the mullahs who run Iran? Don’t they deserve to die for their reign of terror at home and abroad?” 

 

Maybe so, but it’s not our call. We’ve proven that our military interventions, especially in the Middle East, accomplish nothing beyond death and destruction. No good ever comes of these misadventures. We don’t know how to solve the problem of a Shia theocracy that is anti-Israel and anti-U.S. We failed to dislodge the Taliban after 20 years of trying in Afghanistan. Likewise, arguments that Iran can’t be allowed to a) enrich uranium, b) support Hezbollah and the Houthis, and c) run roughshod over the rights of its citizens hold no water. We’ve proven we can’t eliminate those problems even if we bomb the hell out of the whole country and kill thousands of innocents. So why try?

 

Back to Rhodes’ piece in The Times’ Opinion Section. Follow the money. Who is getting rich? 

 

“And yet the wars keep happening,” Rhodes writes. “The money keeps flowing to defense contractors. Traders keep profiting from bets on the rise and fall of oil prices while the working class can’t afford to pay for a tank of gas. Insiders make ghoulish bets about the war on prediction markets while children are killed by American weapons in Iran and Lebanon.”

 

And he didn’t even mention Big Oil.

• Top