Some might have scratched their heads Wednesday upon learning that libertarian Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and self-described “socialist” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., had come together to praise President Trump .

But it is on something all three ostensibly agree on: withdrawing American troops from Syria .

Also on Wednesday, constitutionally conservative Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, found himself on the same side as progressive Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. Furthermore, House Liberty Caucus members Justin Amash, R-Mich., and Thomas Massie, R-Ky., allied with pro-peace Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. Plus, Reps. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., Bill Posey, R-Fla., Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., and Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., teamed up with principled Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif.

This motley crew all signed a letter to Trump showing “bipartisan support of your announcement of the start of a ‘deliberate withdrawal’ of U.S. military forces in Syria.”

In December, Trump announced the U.S. would be removing its troops from Syria, only for the president later to seemingly back off that promise, prompting debate about how serious he is in following through.

“He tells me in no uncertain words that his position has not changed” on Syria, Paul said Wednesday. “The foreign policy swamp, they want to stay everywhere forever ... I don’t think anybody’s changing Trump on these things.”

But Paul has said in the past that while Trump has the right foreign policy instincts, that often gets muddled by the president’s hawkish advisers . The New York Times reported mid-March, “I have talked to the president about 20 times about this,’ Mr. Paul said, noting that Mr. Trump has been publicly opposed to forever wars.”

“Part of the problem is the people around him,” Paul said.

That part — the people around Trump constantly trying to talk him into keeping a war footing in Syria, Afghanistan, and anywhere else the U.S. is involved — is why Right-Left alliances like the one that took shape this week could be important.

The overwhelming bipartisan foreign policy consensus in Washington, from neoconservative ideologues to most moderate Republicans and Democrats, is hawkish by default. It’s the reason presidents from different parties like George W. Bush and Barack Obama had foreign policies more similar than not, something partisans in both camps never liked to acknowledge.

The majority of Trump’s advisers, along with most elected federal officials, subscribe reflexively to a hawkish foreign policy consensus. For some, it’s just been the accepted norm. For others, it’s simply who they are .

Paul touched on this enduring Washington foreign policy status quo during a discussion with Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., Tuesday at an event on Capitol Hill. Similar to Wednesday’s bipartisan announcement, Paul has long teamed with Udall in bringing an end to the war in Afghanistan.

“You were talking about bipartisan, and I talked a little bit about Right and Left coming together” Paul said to Udall and the audience. “I think we’re always hopeful that there is this burgeoning movement bringing Right and Left together for less war, or for more congressional restraint or congressional oversight over war.”

“But there’s also the opposite consensus,” Paul noted. “You know, we’re this Right-Left continuum on one side, [but] there’s also this Right-Left continuum, which really is the majority. If you look at most of the committees, the chairman of most of the committees, Republican and Democrat are actually more for the pro-war caucus.”

“It’s been that way for a long time,” Paul said.

So how do you get around this? How does any leader circumvent the Washington foreign policy establishment and their destructive consensus?

You can be elected president as someone outside of it, as Trump was despite his struggles to stay true to his “America First” foreign policy vision. On the Right, a President Rand Paul would no doubt be making moves to draw down America’s wars just as assuredly as a President Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush would not. On the Left, 2020 Democratic candidates from Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren would likely have a more restrained foreign policy than establishment hawks like Hillary Clinton or even Joe Biden .

But getting elected president is obviously a herculean task, where the establishment almost always has the advantage.

Another route is bipartisan coalitions of pro-peace leaders, like the kind that came together on Wednesday. While there is never, or rarely, a majority of such leaders (we can hope !) there are often enough principled conservative Republicans and progressive Democrats to matter, often from the farthest right and left reaches of their respective parties, who have a shared in interest in a more prudent American foreign policy.

They can use what influence they have to attempt to pierce Washington’s foreign policy consensus. There is potential for changing policy under a president more open to challenging Washington groupthink, as Trump has been known to do and even a younger candidate Barack Obama once promised to do.

Most importantly, it’s hard to imagine the U.S. ever bringing its troops home without more anti-establishment figures like Rand Paul or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and their allies in both parties actively pursuing that goal, using their voices wherever possible.

Whether Trump hears them on Syria remains to be seen. But such Right-Left coalitions might be the best way to pursue peace against a government perpetually resistant to it, and that should be clearer than ever.

Jack Hunter (@jackhunter74) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Sen. Rand Paul.