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
Doesn’t “No Wars” make more sense than “No King’s”?Doesn’t “No Wars” make more sense than “No King’s”?
Rethinking Our Slogan: Why “No Wars” Resonates More Than “No Kings”In the complex landscape of social movements and political discourse, language plays a pivotal role in shaping our message and
Maybe, just maybe, you’ll have blood on your hands, and the sad part is, you’ll never know.Maybe, just maybe, you’ll have blood on your hands, and the sad part is, you’ll never know.
The Power of Kindness in Online InteractionsIn the vast expanse of the internet, where anonymity often reigns, it’s easy to forget that behind every username lies a real person. Each
Abrego Garcia is an illegal immigrant and suspected MS-13 member whose wife obtained a restraining order on him for domestic violence.Abrego Garcia is an illegal immigrant and suspected MS-13 member whose wife obtained a restraining order on him for domestic violence.
The Complex Reality of Domestic Violence and Immigration: A Case StudyIn recent discussions about immigration and public safety, the case of Abrego Garcia highlights critical issues surrounding illegal immigration and
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.