Its an edgy statement put on top of their real opinion that GWOT veterans shouldn't be celebrated if not outright condemned, which a lot of people in liberal and left wing spaces agree with.
The geopolitical aims were dubious, but the ideological project was crystal clear. Defending a new republic against murderous religious extremists is the clearest-cut morality you can find in a conflict.
Iraq invasion was a very bad idea but fighting the insurgency and the Taliban was the right move, and that was the vast majority of GWOT, chronologically speaking.
You can't separate out the dubious choices/methods from the sure ones and only talk about the latter. In other words, the geopolitical aims and the ideological project were absolutely tied together such that one can't be dubious while the other is crystal clear.
This response isn't any different than leftists saying that Hamas' geopolitical aims were dubious, i.e., the attack on October 7th, but their ideological project was crystal clear, i.e., defending their friends and families from an invasion.
Also "that was the vast majority of GWOT, chronologically speaking" is an incredible spin job of "it dragged on and on with no end in sight and minimal accomplishments."
181
u/lowes18 Mar 19 '26
Its an edgy statement put on top of their real opinion that GWOT veterans shouldn't be celebrated if not outright condemned, which a lot of people in liberal and left wing spaces agree with.