> An awful lot of people who were vocally against interventionism during the Bush administration became grudgingly accepting of it...

You'd think that. It was amazing to see the mass protests while W was president that simply evaporated as soon as Obama was in office.

But I disagree that people changed their minds. People were still protesting while Obama was president, and anti-war writers like Greenwald kept up a consistent position.

What went on is the press, really a handful of editors, simply spiked stories about the wars and the protests, and by starving them of media coverage, they didn't weigh on people's minds so heavily.

The higher-ups in a news office have to make judgement calls about what a news program is going to focus on, and to them some stuff feels more or less newsworthy depending on who's in office. It could be some shadowy conspiracy, or, more likely, just their personal unconcious biases.

I think both of these things are true, actually. It does seem that some on the left are fine with war as long as it's a Democrat doing it. For example, look at Hillary Clinton's complicity during the Honduran coup, and how little criticism she received for it. Or deportation and drone strikes under Obama, as another example.

However, it's also true that the anti-war movement died off partly due to failure essentially, as the Iraq War proceeded with essentially no resistance from elected officials, and no coverage from the mainstream media. I think this, more than partisanship, explains why it's basically dead in the water now. If the movement fails to achieve its goals, people will eventually go home. This all happened within W's term.

Protest altogether didn't die out under Obama, however, Occupy Wall Street started in 2011, and was heavily critical of Obama's coziness with the finance industry. Within left movements that exist now, many seem to see a through-line from Occupy Wall Street.

Overall, this speaks to the narrative about tribalism, because there's a tendency to see the opposing group as one mass, when in reality, there are different groups within each side that may disagree with each other as much as they do the nominally-opposed groups. This tendency is also exacerbated by the two-party system in the US that smushes what would really be 3-6 parties together into two.

To be fair, Obama didn't start a new war.

he did normalize CIA drone attacks, which required no declarations, no trials, no reporting, until he made reporting mandatory in 2016 (heh)

What about Libya? While France was the one that started it, he was responsible for the US joining it.

Only Congress can start a war, so Obama technically merely extended an existing war.

Only Congress can declare war. Just about anybody with authority in the military can start one. Regardless, Congress has effectively abnegated its authority to the president through the war powers resolution.

This technicality really shouldn't be brought up. War is war and several presidents have taken military action without a formal declaration of war in congress.

No, just helped overthrow governments in the middle east that led to the rise of the Islamic State that started a few wars...

Gosh, interventionism. So horrible.

> Goes back to watching impeachment proceedings wherein our current President is being proven to have been extorting _another country_ for personal gain while his party fully stands behind him...

Please don't take HN threads further into political flamewar. Also, please don't be snarky in HN comments and especially not on inflammatory topics.

Well, when you dug yourself 60 feet into a hole, you can't dig up.

That's just not a true reflection of public opinion about the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Support for the war in Afghanistan steadily fell from nearly 90% in 2002 to well under 50% during Obama's second term. Similarly, support for the Iraq war plummeted under Bush and remained effectively flat under Obama.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/183575/fewer-view-iraq-afghanis...