Make no mistake: The selection of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee does not suggest that the party wanted to move away from Bush–Obama interventionism. Rather, it suggests the opposite. Remember those 30,000 troops that President Obama sent overseas? Clinton initially wanted 40,000. She was instrumental in pressuring President Obama to go to war in Libya, and she spearheaded the disastrous regime-change effort there (to be fair, Donald Trump had supported the regime change as well). One of her biggest foreign-policy influences was Iraq-surge-architect General Jack Keane — who made a name for himself by continually calling for greater military intervention in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan — and Keane has since reported that Clinton once told him she had made a mistake in not pushing for that surge. She continually supported much greater military involvement in Syria than Barack Obama did; the list goes on and on.

The person whom Democrats chose to represent their party in 2016 is about as well-documented of a hawk as they come, and now we’re seeing some on the left posturing as if their party champions diplomacy and peace. Senator Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.) was critical of President Trump’s “intention to bolster military action in Afghanistan,” slamming his decision to “put additional U.S. troops on the ground” because “it is long past time that we work toward strategies to wind down our operations.” Representative Ro Khan (D., Calif.) tweeted: “Democrats should be clear and bold: We are for withdrawal.” Khan’s sentiment seemed to extend to party leadership; House minority leader Nancy Pelosi actually had the nerve to release a statement saying, “We have wasted an enormous amount of blood and treasure in Afghanistan” and “let’s get out!”