The strikes came as a response to repeated attacks by Houthi militants on merchant vessels and US Navy warships in the Red Sea, which have caused significant disruptions to international trade as merchant vessels have either been seized by militants or have had to take alternate routes to avoid attack.
Though no lives have been lost as a result of the repeated attacks on merchant vessels by Houthi forces, this is only because of American intervention (with US warships shooting down incoming missiles) or by sheer luck. In either case, these attacks on merchant vessels by a well-known Islamist militant group are a clear violation of international maritime law and pose a clear threat to international shipping. It is precisely the kind of threat that would warrant the military response that we saw yesterday from the United States and its allies in the region.
Or, at least, a sensible person would think so. But, unfortunately, sensibility and foreign policy do not seem to go well together in the current climate of hysteria, conspiracism, and deranged lunacy that has come to define the modern "anti-war" movement - particularly when it comes to those on the political left.
In an age where this crowd has loudly proclaimed that "silence is violence" but looting and burning are "protests", one should have seen the "anti-war" left's reaction to these strikes coming from a mile away.
And, of course, as they have done routinely since the war in Gaza began in October of last year, the isolationist charlatans on the far-left didn't hesitate to jump on the bandwagon of "America bad". Because to them, it's not the Iranian-backed militants and pirates attacking ships who are in the wrong. No, instead - in their eyes - it's America who is in the wrong for striking back.
Progressive political commentator Kyle Kulinski of the ironically-named "Secular Talk" took to Twitter to complain about the airstrikes. Kulinski - a prominent voice of non-interventionism from the left - branded the strikes as an "[u]nconstitutional bombing campaign" launched "because Yemen blocked trade with Israel in an attempt to stop a genocide".
Criticisms of Israel notwithstanding, Kulinski fails to realize (or doesn't care to explain) that the Houthis are not recognized as the legitimate rulers of Yemen, nor do they control the current Yemeni government. To refer to the Houthis as "Yemen" is a cynical ploy that has been a common refrain among left-wing isolationist types lately as they seek to paint the strikes on the Houthis as an act of war by the United States on a sovereign nation - which is not at all what the strikes on the Houthis constitute.
And "blocking trade"? Really? Attacking and/or hijacking merchant ships in international waters (many of which had absolutely no connection to Israel whatsoever) is not "blocking trade". It's piracy, which is a crime.
Progressive political commentator Briahna Joy Gray - who once served as a spokesperson for Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign - also took to Twitter to complain, again in defense of the Houthis.
"Notice that even in America's telling of events, Yemen's blockade has been bloodless", she tweeted. "The complaint, now being answered with American bombs, is 'weeks of delays in shipping times'. Yemen's nonviolent efforts to stop a genocide is [sic] met, unsurprisingly, with more western violence".
Of course, again, this is an example of an "anti-war" commentator mistaking the Houthi rebels for the Yemeni government, but - setting aside the ridiculous notion that the Houthis attacks on international shipping are in any way motivated by solidarity with Palestinians rather than anti-western interests aligned with their Iranian backers - are we to somehow believe that firing missiles at merchant ships is "nonviolent"? Seriously?? Do these people even hear the words coming out of their mouths???
Even Democratic politicians took issue with the strikes on the Houthis. Representative Rashida Tlaib put out a statement on Twitter accusing President Biden of "violating Article I of the Constitution by carrying out airstrikes in Yemen without congressional approval", concluding her statement with the oft-repeated, tired mantra: "The American people are tired of endless war".
So let's look at Article I of the US Constitution, shall we? The relevant section states that "The Congress shall have the Power [...] To declare War". But President Biden didn't declare war. He authorized airstrikes. This again speaks to a common misconception among the "anti-war" movement, where all military actions are labeled as "declarations of war". This is not the case.
Under US law - specifically 50 USC, Subsection 1543 - the president may unilaterally authorize military strikes after giving 48 hours notice to Congress with a report outlining the reasons for the strikes. That report was not only submitted; it is publicly available and clearly states that the reason for the strikes was in response to the repeated attacks by the Houthis on international shipping.
Military action in response to piracy isn't even new for the US. In fact, one of the first armed conflicts the United States was involved in as a country occurred in the early 1800s during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, who authorized the US Navy to take military action in the Mediterranean Sea after piracy in the area began posing a threat to international shipping and trade. US Navy warships sank pirate vessels and bombarded pirate bases, ultimately resulting in the suppression of piracy in the region by 1805.
And - just as with President Biden - President Jefferson did not seek the approval of the US Congress to take action against the Barbary Pirates, nor did he have to. He was - as President Biden now is - responding to an immediate threat to US interests by militant insurgents bent on disrupting international trade. And just as President Jefferson and the United States were absolutely justified in their actions in 1805, President Biden and the United States are absolutely justified in their actions today.
I have spent years sparring with isolationist and non-interventionist types over America's role in the world; yet one common refrain I've heard from these "anti-war" activists is that military force is only justified in cases of self-defense. Well, this is a case of exactly that. American ships with American crews have been targeted in international waters by militants who are backed by a hostile foreign power.
The Houthis' motivations are completely unambiguous. They are not engaged in a peaceful embargo. They aren't engaged in a bloodless blockade. They aren't motivated by altruistic notions of freedom and tolerance and peace. It is not about Palestine. It was never about Palestine. It was always about hate. Even the Houthis' own flag makes this clear, bearing the vile slogan: "Death to America; Death to Israel: Curse the Jews; Victory to Islam"
This is EXACTLY the situation that justifies use of military force, or at least justified in the words of these anti-war types. And what is their response? More obfuscation. More victim blaming. More of the same tired, worn out fallacies they have employed and will continue to employ until the end of time.
Normally I'd be content to ignore the whining coming from these people in the wake of a situation like this, but we don't live in normal times. In an age where social media dominates so much of our daily lives, misinformation and fake news are rampant, and they have consequences. Never before in my life did I believe that I would see young, left-wing progressive students - many of whom I grew up with - come to the defense of America's enemies, spew antisemitic and isolationist rhetoric, and cheer on terrorism and violence in the name of hate.
For a generation that is supposed to be the most tech-savvy generation in history - with infinite information right in the palm of their hand - Generation Z has time and time again proven themselves to be bankrupt of media and political literacy. A recent survey by the ADL found that a startling one in five Zoomers believe that the Holocaust was a hoax. Antisemitic incidents have been rapidly increasing in recent months since the war in Gaza began, with a lot of them coming from the political left.
Hatred of America, hatred of Israel, hatred of Jews, and hatred of the West seems to be par for the course when it comes to the modern "anti-war" movement on the left.
I can't help but laugh at the irony. These same groups of people were so quick to accuse Ukraine of being a "fascist regime" and Ukrainians of being "neo-Nazis". They would point to Odinist runes on Ukrainian unit flags or patches and screech about how the United States was supporting a "Nazi government", and how the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a justified "denazification" operation.
And now these same people are publicly aligning themselves with individuals, organizations, and even nations that are dedicated to the extermination of the Jewish people, coming to the defense of a militant Islamist organization that has the slogan "Curse the Jews" on its official flag.
I've said it before and I'll say it once again:
Who are the real neo-Nazis?
Comments
Post a Comment