Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders vs. Donald Trump. In the coming months, the American public, but also US generals, will be preoccupied with who ultimately wins the race in the US election campaign. According to Heinz Gärtner, the question of the future direction and geostrategy of the American army is directly linked to the presidential question. A commentary. In the current US pre-election campaign, all candidates are emphasizing that they are in favour of strong armed forces. But what these are used for is the subject of fierce controversy. The starting point is the voting behavior of then Senator Hillary Clinton before the war in Iraq in 2002, when she voted for the war, but has since admitted during the election campaign that this was a mistake. She has been heavily criticized for this by her Democratic opponent Bernie Sanders and Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. The deeper reason for this dispute is the question of whether the American military is an instrument for the spread of American values and violent changes of government, or whether it is intended to defend American interests in a narrower sense. In this sense, Clinton appears to be the hawk among the candidates because she also pursued regime change in Libya in 2011 and is in favor of no-fly zones in Syria. Sanders warns against cautious action and does not believe that violent regime change can effectively prevent massive human rights violations by authoritarian governments. 
Donald Trump has made contradictory statements about the role of the American armed forces. On the one hand, he exaggerates their role with exaggerated praise, while on the other he complains that they are being pushed around and mistreated all over the world. He responds by announcing an insulted withdrawal of US forces from the world if friendly countries do not pay for the presence of US troops. However, he is using arguments that already exist in the security establishment but are never openly voiced. The Europeans should make higher contributions to NATO, otherwise the USA would leave NATO. South Korea and Japan should pay or defend themselves – even with nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia would have enough money from oil sales to compensate the USA for its protective shield. Trump is looking at the armed forces from a purely market-based perspective. This equation does not take into account the fact that the USA itself is dependent on partners who provide it with bases in order to protect its geopolitical interests in the world. This applies to Asia as well as the Middle East, but also Europe, if only for logistical reasons. Nevertheless, Trump’s arguments are not simply plucked out of the air, they are just irresponsibly reckless. In 2011, former US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had sternly called on the Europeans to do more for their own defence; US President Obama has called Saudi Arabia a free rider; and in South Korea and Japan, people are thinking behind closed doors about whether they can really rely on the American nuclear umbrella and whether they should not develop their own alternatives. For Trump, nuclear weapons could also be used, which earned him the accusation from Hillary Clinton of using nuclear weapons recklessly. However, nuclear experts know that nuclear weapons must also be deployable in order to have a deterrent effect. It can be argued that an elected president is more cautious with the armed forces than he announces during the election campaign. However, the reverse can also happen, as we know from George W. Bush’s Iraq war decision. With Donald Trump, we can by no means be sure.
