"I think it makes people in the Pentagon kind of nervous to know that chemical agents and environmental factors could cause so much damage in terms of what may happen in the future"
About this Quote
Sanders is doing a careful kind of political jujitsu here: he’s warning about catastrophic harm while letting the real target - institutional complacency - peek through the phrasing. “People in the Pentagon kind of nervous” is a loaded understatement. It paints the national security establishment not as omniscient guardians but as bureaucrats with a blind spot, rattled by threats they can’t bomb or deter in the familiar way.
The sentence pivots on an anxiety politicians rarely spell out: chemical agents and “environmental factors” don’t respect borders, uniforms, or budgets. They don’t produce a neat enemy to point at, which means they’re harder to fold into the traditional machinery of defense spending and patriotic narrative. By pairing “chemical agents” (a classic security fear: toxins, weapons, terrorism) with “environmental factors” (a phrase that smuggles in pollution and climate risk), Sanders collapses the divide between foreign threat and domestic policy failure. The subtext is that what we treat as “environmentalism” is also a matter of strategic vulnerability.
Even the clunky syntax - “so much damage in terms of what may happen in the future” - functions as political camouflage. It’s speculative enough to avoid sounding like an accusation, but vivid enough to insist on urgency. Sanders is signaling a broader critique: the Pentagon is comfortable planning for wars, less comfortable acknowledging slow-motion disasters that implicate industry, regulation, and the state itself. The future, in this framing, isn’t a battlefield; it’s blowback.
The sentence pivots on an anxiety politicians rarely spell out: chemical agents and “environmental factors” don’t respect borders, uniforms, or budgets. They don’t produce a neat enemy to point at, which means they’re harder to fold into the traditional machinery of defense spending and patriotic narrative. By pairing “chemical agents” (a classic security fear: toxins, weapons, terrorism) with “environmental factors” (a phrase that smuggles in pollution and climate risk), Sanders collapses the divide between foreign threat and domestic policy failure. The subtext is that what we treat as “environmentalism” is also a matter of strategic vulnerability.
Even the clunky syntax - “so much damage in terms of what may happen in the future” - functions as political camouflage. It’s speculative enough to avoid sounding like an accusation, but vivid enough to insist on urgency. Sanders is signaling a broader critique: the Pentagon is comfortable planning for wars, less comfortable acknowledging slow-motion disasters that implicate industry, regulation, and the state itself. The future, in this framing, isn’t a battlefield; it’s blowback.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Bernard
Add to List




