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.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

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.