Everyone’s favorite cranky grandpa is finally getting his time in the sun. Bernie Sanders is leading a revolt, perhaps a revolution, of the moderate left in this country against the Democratic Party establishment. Sanders has shown a unique ability to mobilize the young and cynical, the unlikely voters and political first-timers. Despite a long history in the senate, he manages to capture that outsider quality of a politician who isn’t bought and paid for. He has run a grass roots campaign with small donations financing over 76% of his financial contributions. The message is simple: get money out of politics and make the super wealthy pay their fair share.

While I take issue with Sanders' characterization of his politics as democratic socialism (it may be pedantic, but he strikes me as a social democrat) I find a lot to love in his domestic policy. I think we should tax the rich and redistribute that wealth to support the future of the country. I hate the current insurance scheme which penalizes citizens who do not give money to a private company for their healthcare and am one of those who thinks Obama wasted an opportunity to institute a single-payer system. When Sanders says get money out of politics I can actually believe, and more importantly verify that he believes in it. Frankly I can’t point to a single domestic policy proposal that I’ve disagreed with.

So naturally I support Bernie Sanders for senator. But president? The president doesn’t exactly set taxation policy. Nor entitlement policy, education, healthcare, or any of the areas where he’s strongest. Possibly as president he’d have greater authority to investigate Wall St. and direct the justice department on investigating corporate dishonesty, but here I question how much he can do without legislative backing. Obviously the president sets the legislative agenda in many ways and has a great deal of policy influence, but he could push for these things in the Senate. We can look to his history to see a senator who opposed conflicts abroad, but so far the presidential campaign has been light on foreign policy details. Moving beyond the standard rhetoric of defeating ISIS, protecting against terrorism, etc. the primary message of the campaign seems to be that the US should scale down its international conflicts and increase our international cooperation. Sanders has specifically pointed to increasing our diplomatic footprint and strengthening alliances as the best way to provide for our safety.

I agree in principle with a diplomatic foreign policy, but there are questions that need specific answers. The few direct messages he has put across are a mixed bag. Let’s start out with some of the good. Sanders came out early against the TPP/TTIP stating “Wall Street and other big corporations have won again. It is time for the rest of us to stop letting multi-national corporations rig the system to pad their profits at our expense.” This trade deal has been negotiated by corporate interests in opaque proceedings with the slightly disquieting promise that it won’t be like all of the other trade agreements we’ve been burned by. Sanders’ history in the Senate speaks strongly to a resistance towards international war, so I find it credible that he would draw down our active military involvement and avoid embroiling us in any new conflicts overseas.

Conceptually I’d love to have our military presence drawn down. Sanders has suggested that countries in the Middle East need to take a more active role in combating extremism. It is a worrying sign that he is proposing Saudi Arabia, a primary exporter of extremist Islam, should take over the fight against ISIS. In the same breath as noting that Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funneling money to ISIS and other extremist groups, Sanders seems to suggest that these countries can be turned around to combat their ideological allies. It is not clear to me how he would decrease our military presence in a way that would support the stability of the region. More troubling to me, Sanders has stated that he would continue the legally and morally dubious drone strike program around the world. The drone program has created an eerie shadow conflict where bombs rain suddenly from the sky, crossing national borders with impunity and with a mounting toll of civilian casualties. Undoubtedly we have killed a large amount of people hostile to the United States, but there are serious doubts that this is going to make our country safer and more trusted internationally.

The Intercept has provided the most detailed analysis of this program, showing how assassination has become official international policy. This program is largely cloaked in secrecy and lacks much formal oversight or popular accountability. In this climate, the frequency of drone strike killings under Obama exploded to more than four times the number killed than under Bush. Evidence suggests that we are doing much more harm than good with these targeted killings. In 2013 a report found that strikes in Afghanistan killed ten times more civilians than enemy combatants over a one year period. The drone program expands into Pakistan where it is deeply unpopular and undercuts our efforts to stabilize the Taliban controlled border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. At the same time, our drone presence is expanding in the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa as we continue to attempt to bomb ourselves into a position of stability.

Does Sanders seriously believe that continuing drone strikes will curb terrorism? As the civilian death toll rises we continue to radicalize more individuals who see themselves being attacked specifically by the United States. There is a common folly to believe we can simply kill the terrorist leaders and thus root out the threat. Radicalization is a complicated process and killing leaders will not get rid of all of the extremists. As long as our foreign policy is seen as attacking Islam, and as long as we continue killing civilians, there will be more people becoming radicalized. This is no kind of sensible anti-terrorism policy no matter how it’s dressed up as targeted or precise warfare. Sanders may qualify his support by arguing that we should use the program selectively, but until such time as he’s willing to give a detailed explanation of his drone policy it seems that we will be in for more of the same. If we draw down our military presence but continue killing civilians by remote, we will not remove the elements which cause radicalization. Sanders’ statements do not reassure me that there will be a positive change but rather suggests we will continue to exert extra-territorial military dominance to our own detriment.

On the topic of Palestine, Sanders has chosen the path of least resistance. He gestures vaguely towards a two state solution, says both sides should follow international law and condemning Palestinian terrorism. It is not surprising given the stranglehold which Israel holds on our foreign policy, but perhaps more disappointing because Sanders seems to have blinders on. He can clearly articulate the imbalance of power at home, but is happy to treat Israel and Palestine as relative equals. Equating the continued illegal occupation of Palestine with extremist fighters is not only disingenuous, it actively harms the peace process. To quote Malcolm X,“ If you stick a knife in my back nine inches and pull it out six inches, there’s no progress. If you pull it all the way out that’s not progress. Progress is healing the wound that the blow made.” We have the power to pressure Israel into beginning the peace process in good faith. We have the power to bring sanctions for their illegal settlements. Yet we don’t. And we continue to be surprised that there are Palestinians willing to kill and die to fight back.

Ultimately Sanders has so far displayed an extremely simplistic view of our international conflicts and international terrorism. It contrasts nicely with the Republican field actively driving us towards war with Russia and carpet bombing civilians in Syria, but doesn’t offer any solutions to our current problems. Sanders is sending signals that his foreign policy will be more of the same: keep America safe through bombing and don’t mess with our international power. Someday we will need to come to terms with the actual causes of terrorism and the deep historical roots of extremism in the middle east. I don’t think there is a candidate today who is seriously presenting solutions, so we’re going to continue to have problems.