Is 'the left' acting 'hypocritically' to be anti-war?

This came up in a debate I was having on here. This was news, given that I and people of similar political bent have been consistently against military interventions. Nonetheless, the fact that some leftists are critical of Trump's airstrike has allowed some alt-rightists to accuse them of hypocrisy.

I do take the point that the US mainstream liberal establishment (like the British one) is hawkish. I find it disappointing but predictable that a lot of the liberal media are cautiously praising Trump for perusing foreign policy that is apparently within the 'mainstream' of normal objectives. I.e. interventionist and against Asad. The Syrian War is highly complex and Trump's action is largely symbolic but nonetheless history teaches us that doing less is normally the best option.

This is one area in which Trump is arguably a lesser-evil than Hillary Clinton. HRC recanted her support for the Iraq War but has learned nothing from it, as witnessed by the Libya debacle. It is likely that she would be more confrontational with Putin in that region and a stand-off between two nuclear super-powers is something that nobody should want. Then again, she was never truly a 'left' politician, particularly on issues of trade and foreign policy.

I think its a good thing that some (but not all) Trump supporters are anti-interventionist. I welcome those who are open-minded enough to be critical of Trump on this. Should they name-call the left though? I think not. I was going on demos against the Iraq War whilst most of them were munching on their freedom fries.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

Xuan12 · 31-35, M

I actually find it a bit surprising. The US left has not been known for being hawkish in recent decades, Hillary being bit of an exception. Obama's infamous "line" was crossed during the Syrian Civil war already, and drew no real rebuke, precisely because he was reluctant to delve deeply into another conflict, one in which the US lacked significant foreign allies and no approval from congress. Some people like to try to pin him with Libya, but while the US did participate, it was a NATO venture, along with other regional states, to enforce a UN resolution originally proposed by France, Lebanon, and the UK. And of course, the Obama administration did respond to ISIS with a support campaign at the request of Iraq.

Prior to Obama, Bill Clinton presided over a few operations, but quite limited in scope. The last few decades the US left has been reluctant to enter into any broad conflicts, save for the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. Most sitting democratic reps did also vote against invading Iraq. The left seems to prefer interventions to be quick and relatively clean, at least insofar as it doesn't cost the US much. Or otherwise prefer to have broad coalitions of international support, which the presence of in this case might explain why the left is slightly more at ease. I can only wonder why none of these actors wanted to do anything back in 2013, when a much more deadly gas attack occurred under similar circumstances.

That said, I think it would be unfair to categorize the right as being the opposite, but in terms of the Iraq invasion it is certainly the case. The Iraq Resolution passed on the back of the GOP, and turned out no convincing evidence of WMDs, a long occupation, and the birth of perhaps the most radicalized insurgency in recent history.

Although, keep in mind that this is in relative terms. US Right and Left are probably prone to being more interventionist in general than that of many other countries.

Northwest · M

Hillary is an interventionist liberal. President Obama, is a leftist.

He did not want to interfere in Syria, because doing so, would play into the Islamist GCC/Qatar/Turkey hands.

The neocons supported Hillary, because they thought Trump is an isolationist alt-righthist. It turns out he had no clue, and said what would have sounded good to your typical "let's gather around the bar, have a few beers, and solve the world's problems" crowd. Partially to get himself elected, and partially, well, because that's his level of sophistication.

He finally realizes, that he should really be supporting the short term goals of his GCC/Qatar/Turkey friends, and these folks want Assad out, to re-establish Sunni dominance over the Levant. That would be the same people who gave rise to ISIS and armed it.

We can shelve the "did Assad do it conversation" for now, as no one really knows. The liberals are happy, because we're doing something about someone who is killing his people. The alt-right is not happy, because it's a betrayal. The left is worried, and the right (industrial/military complex) is drooling over the prospect of a long term, us versus them conflict.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

Obama was no leftist. He counts as centre left of the post Reagan Us establishment on most issues so I guess its relative. His administration was involved in military operations in seven countries.

Tbf he was a dove compared to Hillary though. Libya was her idea and Obama deserves credit for resisting pressure to escalate things in Syria.

Northwest · M

@Burnley123: I think he's the real deal, based on his original agenda, speeches, community organizing, etc. but he moved to center, so he can get elected. It all happened, after he appeared on Oprah.

He also wanted to arrive at a consensus position. A mistake, in my opinion.

I am waiting for his memoirs to confirm.

This should especially be the height of irony, if Trump and the haters understand irony, but his refusal to support the GCC/Qatar/Turkish agenda in Syrian and Iraq, goes against their accusations of his Kenyan birth and supposed Muslim faith (Sunni, but it's not like they know the difference).

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@Northwest: I agree that its all Oprah's fault. I blame her for Trump too. 😉

On a serious note, I think you have it right when you say Obama was a consensus politician. Exactly the wrong time for it. Its a glass half empty or half full situation. There is a lot the left can criticise but at least he was better than a Republican.

SW-User

America needs to stay out of this, anyone who thinks Assad gassed his own people is retarded.

View 1 more replies »

SW-User

@theoneyouwerewarnedabout: Do you think that Assad did it? What on Earth would his motive be?

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@kingfish2: He could have done it but you do have a point. He has used chemical weapons many times before and we can't rule that out but then again it could be another Bay of Tomkin.

Goralski · 51-55, M

@Burnley123: there was never no proof of him doing so. ...the nutty fuckers fighting him been caught 4 times using gas

CaptainCanadia · 41-45, M

The left is not a singular concept, and I certainly don't consider the democrat party to be left. Perhaps left of the Republicans but that's basically every other political entity on the planet.

Cierzo · M

I think the terms 'left' and 'liberal' have become rather ambiguous in their meaning, and they are easily mistaken.
One of their differences is their attitude towards war and interventionism. Liberals are interventionist, they believe it is ok to do it in the name of 'freedom and democracy'. Leftists do not agree with war.

Liberals side in this (and in many other things) with neocons, whereas leftists and alt-righters/paleoconservatives/libertarians oppose war.

This game of political labels is getting crazy.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

Indeed but I agree with every word. Have best answer paleocon. 😜

Cierzo · M

@Burnley123: Hahaha. I take the word paleocon gladly. Thanks, leftist (or better Fabian socialist?) 🤔

TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP

seems the left are now trump fans once he dropped a few bombs... weird that..

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

Pfff. Its not 'the left'.

The left and the liberal establishment are different things. That is the whole point of my post.

Goralski · 51-55, M

They're goin in 150000 troops you watch how long its gonna take for d liberal war mongers ta turn on that dumb ass trump

Add a comment...