Unpleasant reality: Assad provided more stability for Syria, Gaddafi for Libya, and Saddam for Iraq. However, the goal of American foreign policy has never been to ensure peace in these regions.
Uncomfortable truth: Assad was better for Syria. Gaddafi was better for Libya. Saddam was better for Iraq. But the purpose of American foreign policy has never been to bring stability to these places.
Categories:
1 thought on “Uncomfortable truth: Assad was better for Syria. Gaddafi was better for Libya. Saddam was better for Iraq. But the purpose of American foreign policy has never been to bring stability to these places.”
Leave a Reply
Related Post
I’m sick of this world ruled by only a group of people making all of us their slaves.I’m sick of this world ruled by only a group of people making all of us their slaves.
Breaking Free from the Chains of Control: A Call for Awareness In a world where power often seems concentrated in the hands of a select few, many of us find
And so … Where is the Epstein’s list ?And so … Where is the Epstein’s list ?
Title: The Mystery Surrounding Epstein’s List: Unraveling the Secrets In the wake of high-profile legal proceedings and widespread media coverage, the topic of Jeffrey Epstein’s infamous “black book” has sparked
You can skip breakfastYou can skip breakfast
Rethinking Breakfast: Is It Really the Most Important Meal of the Day? In recent discussions surrounding health and nutrition, breakfast has frequently been touted as the most crucial meal of
It’s definitely a complex and contentious issue. While it’s true that leaders like Assad, Gaddafi, and Saddam maintained a certain level of order in their countries, their regimes were also marked by authoritarianism, human rights abuses, and suppression of dissent. The resulting instability and conflict after their removal have raised important questions about the effectiveness of foreign intervention.
American foreign policy often grapples with the tension between promoting democracy and dealing with the realities of authoritarian stability. In many cases, the short-term consequences of removing these leaders led to chaos and suffering, raising doubts about whether the long-term goals of democracy and freedom could justify the means.
It’s important to critically assess the motivations behind foreign interventions and their outcomes, recognizing that the path to stability and progress is rarely straightforward. Getting caught in the dichotomy of ‘better or worse’ can oversimplify complex political landscapes and the lived experiences of people in those countries.