I found the essay to a load of simplistic rubbish. About par for the course for a right-wing propaganda hack.
Meanwhile this reference gives a very comprehensive window into the multi-faceted nature of left-wing politics.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com

Amazingly, both William Hill (the author) and most of the commenters have overlooked the fact that most people on the left aren't obsessively antiimperialist or antiAmerican. Quite a lot are anti war, but considering how recent wars have played out, perhaps that's not such a bad thing?

There's little sympathy among the left for antidemocratic islamists. But there is significant support for those who are democratically elected, even if they have islamist agendas. Trying to stop them by non democratic means can be deeply counterproductive.

Ortega and Chávez were both democratically elected, and actually made a great to improve conditions in their countries for ordinary people instead of governing for the rich. Both were unjustly destabilised by America. Instead of asking why the left supported them, it would be better to ask why the right opposed them, particularly in the early days. Of course Chávez is dead now, and the Venezuelan economy's ruined... ironically by the decision to fix the rate of the Bolivar against the US dollar!

Hi Aidan,

Funny, I don't recall many on the 'Left' opposing the chauvinist wars of the Serbs against the peace-loving Bosnians or Kosovars, or the brutal Indonesian suppression of the Timorese - or supporting those groups in their wars to defend themselves ?.

As for your comment: "There's little sympathy among the left for antidemocratic islamists. But there is significant support for those who are democratically elected, even if they have islamist agendas. Trying to stop them by non democratic means can be deeply counterproductive."

I also didn't know about the existence of democratic Islamists: where are they ?

As for democratically-elected Islamists, the only country that I know of in my limited understanding would be Erdogan's Turkey. Are you suggesting that the 'Left' is supporting Erdogan ?

Are here any other democratic Islamist countries on the face of the Earth ?

And which forces in the Middle East are using non-democratic means, apart from quite proper defensive wars, to get their way ? Are throwing gays off tall buildings, boiling people in vats of tar, burning young women in cages, raping thousands of Yazidi women, bombing women and children in market-places - which of these anti-democratic means, Aidan, do you mean ?

Joe

Excellent article. Well reasoned and spot on.

Speaking of false premises, Milosevic was earlier this year exonerated by the International Criminal Tribunal:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/01/the-exoneration-of-milosevic-the-ictys-surprise-ruling/

A very well written and thought out article, William Hill. I only disagree with your reasoning about Serbia and Tito. If you are interested in the history of Yugoslavia and what sort of person Tito really was, could I recommend to you that fascinating and very famous book by Fitzroy McLean. "Eastern Approaches".

Tito was a communist who had good reason to distrust the USSR. The British and Americans gave Tito's communist forces all of the military aid they could, when they realised that Tito and his partisans were holding down 13 German divisions in Yugoslavia, while in North Africa, the entire British Commonwealth army was flat out keeping Rommel with two German and two Italian divisions at bay.

After the war, Tito refused to allow Yugoslavia to join the Warsaw Pact. When the Russians prepared to invade, Tito flew direct to Moscow to meet Stalin. Marching straight up to Stalin he shouted in Russian "You invade my country and I will give you twenty years of war!" Stalin knew he meant it, and the USSR did not invade. A most remarkable man.

Tito heeded Churchill's advice not to nationalise the farms or to take state control of industry too far. He tried to be friendly with the West and the East, did not support terrorists movements anywhere, and created the Non Aligned Movement. He was first and foremost a nationalist who was ruthlessly determined to keep his religiously and culturally fractured country together as a single entity. I think he equates with Abraham Lincoln on that score. When he died, Yugoslavia fell apart, and a million people died with him.

Serbia is, and always has been, the front line of Europe against an invasive and expanding Islam. I am as pro American as you can get, but I shook my head in wonder at the US attacking Serbia just to suck up to the Muslims, who all hate the US anyway. The Muslims said "thank you" with 9/11.

With Muslim terrorism becoming an almost daily occurrence in Europe, the Serbs are laughing their heads off.