The Left's Problem with Warfare

A frequent and somewhat unrefined narrative goes as such: if you are right-wing you support war, whereas if you are of a leftist persuasion you oppose such confrontation. If only it were that simple.

Let me start by categorically stating that I firmly consider myself to be left-wing; a Trotskyist in fact. I have consistently supported left-wing causes and continue to do so. However, as in all cases, it is crucial that you look analytically, not just at your opponents, but at yourself. Whilst there are undoubtedly many flaws and blemishes within the traditional right-wing ideology, it is equally irrefutable to state that there are numerous faults within traditional left-wing wisdom. Here I shall unmask some of the unsightly defects manifesting within what is often referred to as the left; that almost mythical notion that amalgamates the common themes and beliefs of communism, socialism and liberalism.

A frequent and somewhat unrefined narrative goes as such: if you are right-wing you support war, whereas if you are of a leftist persuasion you oppose such confrontation. If only it were that simple. The reality is that warfare is not merely the black and white scenario many make it out to be. The truth is that warfare and militaristic intervention is one of the most polarising topics out there in the political sphere. It splits not just those on opposing ideological sides but those who share similar, if not identical, political beliefs. Tragically, this has a detrimental and destructive impact; particularly on the left. Unlike the right, who usually hold firm and united on such issues, the left finds itself divided and at loggerheads.

Strangely, the concerns surrounded military deployment wound the left on two fronts; the passionate anti-war movement and the influential pacifist faction. Both splinter groups' anxieties merit considerable deliberation. First, I shall endeavour to conclude the pacifism versus warfare dispute before tackling the problems surrounding the anti-war concept. It is imperative that we grasp and dissect the two theories in order to fully comprehend the problems they create. An anti-war movement is a movement established in order to oppose a nation's decision to go to war or carry out armed conflict. Pacifism differs slightly in that a pacifist is opposed to war and violence in general; this is not tied to a specific circumstance, unlike anti-war sentiment.

George Orwell once wrote: "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other". Essentially, by this, Orwell was asserting - correctly - that pacifism is a hypocritical stance. On the one hand they wish to avoid violence, yet, by remaining non-aligned, inadvertently give the other side an advantage. A recent example would be Iran. Pacifists will, and do, claim that western powers must not bomb Iranian nuclear facilities in order to avert them becoming the tenth nation to possess nuclear weapons. Yet what they obdurately refuse to acknowledge is the potential damage that a nuclear-armed Iran could cause to world peace.

Naturally, their argument does carry some weight. They claim, as Mehdi Hasan does, that why should Iran not have nuclear weapons when nine other countries are already in possession of such harmful tools (especially when North Korea, Israel, Pakistan and China are included on that list)? But crucially, pacifists downplay the numerous threats made by senior Iranian officials. Iran's chief nuclear envoy, Ali Larijani, claimed that whilst Iran had no plans to use nuclear weapons, "If we are threatened, the situation may change". A pacifist mentality would absolutely have allowed Nazism to spread unchallenged and many more lives would have been lost; all because of a wishy-washy belief in never bearing arms. Can we risk allowing Iran the first move?

Many on the left wholeheartedly criticise right-wing thinkers who ardently support foreign invasions. And with good reason. In fact, you would be hard pushed to find anybody on the left who admires imperialism, let alone the notion of invasion for financial or material gain. Nevertheless, some militaristic interventions can, and should, be justified for defending concrete left-wing principles. The invasion of Iraq for instance, whilst being fraudulently sold on the basis of weapons of mass destruction, was somewhat justified on the grounds of defending women's rights, secularism and democracy; all noble leftist causes. The removal of such tyrants as Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic and Muammar Gaddafi can only be a good thing.

What is objectionable however is the manner in which this occurs. Yes, I was delighted to witness Gaddafi's removal, but did not care to see him murdered at the hands of boisterous rebels. I am a firm believer in justice and would ideally have liked to see him stand trial for his many crimes. The same can be said of Osama bin Laden. He should not have been executed; a grim outcome many on the right were ecstatic about. Despite this, I am almost certain that the majority of citizens do not desire warfare, thus belittling the basic definition of what it means to be anti-war. More necessary is the ability to differentiate between worthy battles and avoidable ones. Vietnam, for example, was avoidable; as was President Clinton's callous attack on Sudan during his tenure.

Regrettably, the anti-war movement has transformed into a trendy bandwagon entity. It lacks any intellectual credence and merely bombards pro-interventionists with slanderous labels such as 'imperialists', 'warmongers' and 'neo-cons'. Instead of evaluating each and every case on its merit, all foreign policy is treated with the same contempt. Derision is the name of the game. Worse still, anti-war campaigners often fall into that unforgivable trap of siding with the antagonists. Celebrated activists John Pilger and George Galloway are the worst culprits. As recently as 2005, Mr Galloway, during a visit to Damascus University, stated, "Syria is lucky to have Bashar Al-Assad as her president"; the same president currently murdering his own citizens for demanding true democracy.

This was not the first time the left's favourite anti-war mascot has made inappropriate remarks. In 1994, when addressing Saddam Hussein, he declared, "I though the President would appreciate to know that even today, three years after the war, I still meet families who are calling their newborn sons Saddam". John Pilger, when speaking of Iraq prior to Hussein's removal, declared that he had "seldom felt as safe in any country". Not only were they denouncing the invasion, they were unequivocally supporting the dictatorial regime. This surely is not the objective of the anti-war movement nowadays; that formerly wonderful group that used to occupy the moral high ground. Instead, they are now providing assistance to the opposition.

In recent years, there has been an alarming failure by the left to identify worthwhile democratic interventions. Even when motives have been suspect, such as William Hague's recent divulgence that Libya was about oil, it is vital that the left remembers the fundamental principles for which it stands; freedom, equality, human rights and emancipation. Adopted poster-boys Pilger and Galloway - not to mention Michael Moore - have, if anything, decreased the credibility of the left. To be leftist does not mean to automatically oppose military involvement; on the contrary. Rather, the left ought to be providing what should be mandatory scholarly analysis required for each proposed military involvement.

Whilst the right remain religiously united in all issues relating to war, the left continue to avoid the subject through fear of internally dividing. This must end if we are to regain integrity. Ironically, the left have made unconvincing, and somewhat feeble, defenders of humanitarian values in recent times. A world without Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Osama bin Laden, Slobodan Milosevic and, hopefully, sooner rather than later, Bashar Al-Assad is incontestably a better, safer and more democratic place. Yes, the imperfections of Cameron, Obama, Sarkozy and other western leaders are plain to see, but this should not blind those of us of leftist affiliation of the need to aid far away sufferers who struggle-on daily without the basic rights we in the privileged world take for granted.

Close

What's Hot