Democrats' positions on military force change with the seasons

It's been fascinating to watch the reactions to President Trump's decision to remove troops from Syria.

It could be foreseen that many Republicans opposed this move. What's surprising is how most Democrats have spoken out against it, as well.

The Republican opposition is consistent with the conservative view on military intervention, but the Democrats are reversing course on a position they've held for years.

Think back to the early 2000s. How many Democrats opposed the use of force in Iraq, and how many even opposed retaliating against Afghanistan and the Taliban for the Sept, 11, 2001 attacks on America? Democrats have consistently been in favor of a smaller American military presence in the Middle East, but when it comes to Trump, their opposition to him outweighs their traditional positions. Many who opposed the use of force in the past have done a 180 and are now decrying the pullout.

The Democrats basically drummed Joe Lieberman, their 2000 vice presidential nominee and a reliable liberal vote on just about every issue, out of their party because of his views on national defense and the use of force. He won his last senatorial election from Connecticut as an independent. Will they apologize to him and welcome him back into the fold because they've now adopted his position?

While Democrats usually remained united in their position on the issue until their recent pivot, there have always been two camps among the Republicans. Those who championed the use of force, such as John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, and the late John McCain, were often called "hawks" or the oft-misapplied pejorative "neocons." But there's always been a vocal libertarian-leaning contingent, including Kentucky's own Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, that has been opposed to the use of force in distant lands and have been loud "bring the troops home" advocates.

That's what most of the Democrats have been saying for years, too, until Trump did exactly that. Because Trump supported it, they suddenly had to oppose what they had been advocating.

But what's really been funny to watch is how the Democrats have turned on one particular presidential candidate who agrees with Trump's decision and the "bring the troops home" position in general.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (she of the Jackson County, Ky., Gabbard lineage) is a down-the-line liberal on just about every issue they hold dear. But when she declined to condemn the withdrawal from Syria and expressed her support for the concept of ending American engagement in the Middle East, her fellow Democrats lost it. Hillary Clinton, in particular. Proving that she obviously hasn't gotten over losing the presidential election in 2016 and clinging to the belief that Trump was elected fraudulently (hint: he wasn't), she made allusions to Gabbard being "a Russian asset," and her spokesperson didn't deny she was talking about Gabbard when asked directly.

That's indicative of where many Democrats are today. They see Russians behind every tree. In Kentucky, they're even making Russia an issue in the governor's race because a proposed aluminum mill in the northeastern part of the state will have Russian investors. They've come a long way from 2012, when Mitt Romney said Russia was America's greatest threat and Barack Obama basically laughed him off.

Hillary, in particular, is a lost cause. She still can't accept that she's been twice rejected in her attempt to win the highest office in the land, once by her own party. I know of no one who voted for Trump because of Russian interference. They either voted for him because they liked what he was saying, or they saw through Hillary for what she was, or some combination of both. She thinks Green Party candidate Jill Stein was a Russian plant in 2016, and thinks Russia's grooming Gabbard to mount a third-party challenge after her inevitable departure from the Democrats' race. Either Hillary has forgotten that a lot of states have passed "sore-loser" laws that prohibit party primary candidates from running as an independent or third-party candidate in that same election, or she knows but chooses to ignore it since it doesn't fit her narrative. And now the whispers are starting once again that she's thinking about mounting yet another presidential bid. Gabbard even dared her to do so.

I can hear Donald Trump saying, "Please don't throw me in that briar patch," all the way from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to the foothills of eastern Kentucky over that notion.

The idea that Gabbard is a Russian asset is beyond laughable. She serves in the Hawaii National Guard and has been deployed on combat missions in the Middle East. Sure, she's as much of a socialist as any of the rest of the presidential candidates on that side, but the notion that she's a Russian asset is just deranged. And only a few of her fellow presidential candidates have defended her from Hillary's goofy pronouncement. They were quick to admonish others not to talk about Joe Biden's Ukraine situation, but questioning Gabbard's patriotism wasn't a problem for them.

The Syrian situation has been fluid. It's complicated, and volumes have been written about it. Turkey and the Kurdish rebels have been battling for years. The Kurds helped us in the fight against Islamic terrorists, but the Turks are a NATO ally. At this writing, a cease-fire has been orchestrated. Trump was in a classic no-win situation here. Withdraw the troops, and we've abandoned a partner in the war on terror. Keep them there, and we're putting them in harm's way with no discernible American interest. Trump had campaigned on ending America's endless wars, and his message resonated with Americans who saw our troops continue to lose their lives 17 years after the 2001 attacks with no sight of a finish line.

Still, it's really surreal to watch their positions change like the wind just because Trump took a position they've held for years. Should Trump change his mind, they'd probably change their minds about the issue as well.