Anything but Pacifists! The Left Has Always Led Us into War

From Clinton to Renzi via Obama, the left has always brought us war.

It is no longer the age of the pacifist left. Now, what’s fashionable is a left that might get itself the Nobel Peace prize, but then creates conflicts – and more or less controlled – throughout the world. Only Obama, practically the “good pope” of politics, has made war on Libya. Later, he tried to do the same with Syria, and finally, with Ukraine. And that’s to say nothing of Egypt, which Obama may have helped to destabilize.

Obama’s foreign policy has always been near-sighted: He supplied arms to the rebels of Assad, not knowing (or pretending not to know), that among them were members of al-Nusra, or rather al-Qaida. He helped to stir up tensions in Ukraine, where he now wants to send further arms. But what will Ukraine’s future be? Will Poroshenko resist? What will the men of the Azov battalion do, those who are fighting for a Ukraine free from both European domination and from Russia? So many unknowns. But Obama’s war is only the most recent in a long series of wars waged by the left.

In the Beginning, It Was Kosovo

It was March 24, 1999, and NATO’s bombers were hitting the first Serbian military targets. Pristina, Podgorica and finally, Belgrade. They left from Italy, with the approval of the prime minister at the time, Massimo D’Alema.

As soon as Scalfaro named him prime minister, D’Alema flew to see Bill Clinton. It was the beginning of March, 20 days before the start of the bombing. The war had already been decided on: a lightning war, in Clinton’s mind: “Two days of bombing will be enough, and the Serbs will withdraw.”* Never has a prophecy been so far from the truth.

D’Alema returned to Italy. He had only been asked to provide military bases, so that the NATO fighters could take off and reach their targets, but the Italian prime minister wanted more: “Italy is not an aircraft carrier. If we carry out this military action together, we take responsibility equally with the other countries in the alliance.” And so the D’Alema government supplied the NATO airbase in Aviano. From here, the fighters taking war to Kosovo would take off. One of the most enthusiastic advocates of NATO’s line was Sergio Mattarella, the current president of the Republic.

From Gadhafi to the Islamic State; The Crisis in Libya

The Islamic State is at the gates of the Mediterranean. They’re in Libya. From there, they can easily hit Italy with missiles. It’s child’s play, but more macabre.

The Islamic State group’s army is now in the nation that was ruled for over 40 years by Moammar Gadhafi, killed on the Oct. 20, 2011, crushed by the Arab Spring and the NATO bombings.

Even then, Obama was the first to want to make war on Libya. Along with the United Kingdom, he positioned his fleet in the Mediterranean, saying he wanted to make sure that “the United States has the full capacity to act — potentially rapidly — if the situation deteriorated in such a way that [we] had a humanitarian crisis on our hands.”

Joe Biden, vice president of the USA, even tried to pull Putin into the Libyan bloodbath, but the Russian leader refused.

It’s true that, thanks to NATO, a dictator fell. But, now, what price must we pay: not being able to face up to the terrorists, who have managed to conquer Libya in less than no time.

Even Gentiloni, the Italian politician, has said he is worried about the situation in Libya, stating that Italy is “ready to fight, naturally within the framework of international regulations,” and that “we can’t accept that a few hours away from Italy there may be an active terrorist threat.”

Using the Terrorists Against Assad?

America’s aim in Syria was to beat the Assad regime. All things considered, it is a secular regime (Assad is part of the interdenominational and Pan-Arab Baath Party) capable of facing up to the terrorists. It is certainly an authoritarian one, and not free from violence, and has been in crisis since January 2011, when the Arab Spring began to blow through Syria.

The pacifist protests quickly became civil war. Members of the al-Nusra Front, connected to al-Qaida and the Islamic State group, appeared next to the protesters. America, France and the United Kingdom supplied arms to the rebels, and so, whether they liked it or not, they armed the terrorists as well.

This time, too, Obama toyed with the idea of directly helping the rebels: “Well over 1,000 people were murdered … gassed to death by their own government. This attack is an assault on human dignity. It also presents a serious danger to our national security.”

Yet again, Russia intervened and vetoed the anti-Assad operations. In doing so, it prevented Syria from losing the only man that, for good or for ill, can really fight the Islamic State group.

Hollande’s Awkward ‘Grandeur’: Ukraine

The Ukrainian crisis has revealed that there is well and truly a rift within NATO. While Obama’s administration is pushing for war, Angela Merkel’s Germany is holding back. Hollande is playing a marginal, perhaps even slightly comical role, increasingly flattened by the American government’s position (a government that continues to send arms to the Ukrainians).

Do you remember his words on the eve of the meeting with Putin? “If we don’t manage to find an agreement, we know there is only one scenario on the horizon. And it’s called war.” So spoke Hollande, for whom Islamic terrorism seems not to be the main danger in the least.

*Editor’s note: Correctly translated, this quote could not be verified.