[schalab]

I love how people are worried about the far right in these comments but not on the impact of propaganda on themselves.

This recent Kurds vs Turkey is an example of this.

The left usually hates war. Why? If you break down to the lowest level, it looks like the current left is mainly dominated by the maternal instinct. In every issue they divide the world into child vs predator. And they always come down on the side protecting the weak child.

You can see this across a number of social, economic and geo poilitical issues.

In terms of war, they look at it as America's selfish predatory instincts preying upon innocent parties in the middle east leading to countless lives lost of the weak.

So how do you get people who think like this to support war?

Simple. Invent a weak, childlike ally in the middle of the war zone, who are being attacked by a notorious hateful predator, and we would be abandoning them if we dont put our troops in harms way.

So, you rebrand the american troop presence as honorable protection rather than predatory intervention. Thats all it takes to manufacture consent.

[shantly]

I'm (USA) left on just about any position you care to mention, and am worried more by the Kurd/Turkey thing's apparent ineptness and failure to fit any foreign policy plan whatsoever. Bumbling incompetence is less appealing to me than either well-executed, cold realpolitik, or failed but well-meaning attempts at actual moral leadership. It's about as bad as it gets, short of outright evil for evil's sake.

I also don't think it'd be inconsistent to oppose going into various wars in the Middle East, while also opposing recklessly withdrawing once we'd stuck our noses in already.

[nitwit005]

Yep, the lack of any plan is usually the issue. Often it's not even clear there is a goal.

The New York Times was recently criticizing Trump on the basis of him having reduced US influence due to his recent actions. I was a bit confused by that claim, as I wasn't sure what we needed the influence for. The previous stated goal was "defeating ISIS", which largely already happened. I have no real idea what the current goal was supposed to be.

[shantly]

Oh, yeah, to be clear I think that, given public information (you never know what secret crap's going on, same for Trump's moves, so we have to work with what we know), intervening in Syria to begin with—by which I mean encouraging and supplying the rebels, not the later anti-ISIS actions—was a massive humanitarian and geopolitical disaster, possibly a bigger blunder than (though related to) the invasion of Iraq, even, and I think that shouldn't have been too hard to predict from the start, not just an obvious-in-hindsight thing. It's a big part of why I don't hold Obama's (or Hillary's) actions on foreign policy in very high regard, to put it mildly.

[mhermher]

Sure, Trump is especially incompetent. But the same exact idea applied to Obama's reign and policy in Syria as well. You can forget about "saving the children of Aleppo", etc.

[zzzcpan]

This has nothing to do with the "left". Protecting your "brothers" and "sisters" from dehumanized child-killing enemy is the core of all war propaganda.

[nickik]

> The left usually hates war.

At least politically that is not true. There is a anti-war left, but politically its long gone.

However you overall point that 'we can't leave otherwise genocide' or 'if we don't act genocide' has been part of the narrative for every war.

Remember Bengazi? Apparently Gadaffi was gone go in an slaughter 50000 people. That was of course total nonsense but it convinced the government to act.

[pnongrata]

Are you equating "left" to "Dems"? Because the left that I know is all against war and interventionism.

Maybe there is something to be said about how people think Liberal means leftie.

[nickik]

That's why I said politically its not true. The political left is for the most part not against war. If you want to call all those people not of the 'true' left then whatever.

The reality is both right and the left have a strong anti-war movment and neither has political power.

[Clubber]

>The left usually hates war.

Do you mean the politicians or the public? If you mean politicians, I haven't seen much evidence that Democrat (center/leftish) politicians hate war in the last few decades. Wilson was president during WWI, FDR during WWII, LBJ during Vietnam, Bill Clinton had Bosnia and Hillary Clinton voted for Iraq. Obama presided over quite a few conflicts. Maybe Jimmy Carter?

>the current left is mainly dominated by the maternal instinct

What are you basing this on?

>Simple. Invent a weak, childlike ally in the middle of the war zone, who are being attacked by a notorious hateful predator, and we would be abandoning them if we dont put our troops in harms way.

Typically war has been based on pushing a fear of "ism." Anarchism in the early 1900s, Communism middle 1900s, Terrorism in the 2000s.

[schalab]

>What are you basing this on?

It should be fairly obvious if you look at any issue the left focuses on. Blacks vs Whites. Rich vs Poor. Women vs Men.

The double standards of how they talk about christianity vs islam. Israel vs palestine.

Literally every issue. Divides the world into weak vs strong, blames the strong for the situation of the weak regardless of causal chain.

For more practical evidence, the only march which gained traction was the women's march. They tried it with latinos, science etc.

The biggest issue which has resonated against Trump is the children in cages. Why do you think that is?

[gitrog]

You're basically criticising leftists for pointing out how power structures in the world are abused and phrasing it as somehow being maternal and therefor... questionable?

Or is your problem only with the causal chain? Which leftist cause that condemns an abuse of power has incorrectly assumed a causal link?

I would say the biggest issue that has stuck against Trump is by a wide margin the alleged Russian collusion, but are you trying to say that people - nevermind leftists - _shouldn't_ be collectively upset about children being separated from their parents and kept in cages?

[Miner49er]

Interesting example, considering Chomsky was one of the early proponents on the left for keeping troops in Syria to protect the Kurds.

https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/13cf816e-8e40-41c8-bb76-...

I think this is a case where the establishment/media and the left actually agree. We shouldn't abandon allies. Additionally, Rojava is running a libertarian socialist society, which leftists obviously like. Finally, 60 or so troops is all that's needed to stop Turkey, and I wouldn't really call 60 troops "predatory intervention".

I don't think the left's opinion here is manufactured consent.

[pnw_hazor]

The YPG is marxist offshoot of the PKK. Turkey (an actual member of NATO) will never voluntarily let them establish an independent homeland in Syria.

The way it is working out now is the best anyone, Americans at least, could hope for. Let the regional powers that have actual national interest sort it out.

If ISIS comes back, the US can come back if needed.

As a vet, with a son who was an Army Ranger and a daughter who is an Army aviator, 60 troops sounds like too many to me.

[jariel]

There are very serious facts on the ground that entirely negate concepts such as 'manufactured' consent.

Also, I think CNN is screaming sympathy for the Kurds right now partly because they really hate Trump.