Their actions make a lot of sense. Consider the following . . .
1. Politically, the leaders of these countries have to protect themselves because in a parliamentary system the government could collapse tomorrow. In a system like ours with pre-determined term lengths, leaders can pick and choose when to take certain actions relative to the time that will elapse before the next election (i.e., taking controversial stands two years before the next election gives a U.S. politician some calendar time to re-build his popularity). In the modern world, the phrases "parliamentary government" and "lack of courage" are synonymous for the very reasons I described.
2. These nations also want to provide the outward appearance of opposing the U.S. to keep their relations with Arab nations on good terms.
3. In the event the U.S. is incapable of "doing it right," they will be in a position of "plausible deniability." Recent history shows that the U.S. generally doesn't have a great track record of "doing things right," so they simply want to cover their @sses.
Point #3 is also interesting because it has also been applied in reverse. If you go back to the early 1990s and see how Croatia was able to build the most powerful standing army in Europe despite the fact that the former Yugoslav republics were subject to an arms embargo by NATO nations, you'll notice that in that case Germany was doing things on their own and the U.S. was doing exactly what France and Germany are doing today.
Personally, I also think that they are genuine leftists and pacifists, but that's just my own opinion.