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
Where do you think they are getting the next $50 billion?Where do you think they are getting the next $50 billion?
Where do you believe they’ll find the next $50 billion?
Reddit Is Not Organic – It’s a Controlled System. Here’s the Proof. And From This Point On, We’re Logging Every Troll That Tries to Shut It Down.Reddit Is Not Organic – It’s a Controlled System. Here’s the Proof. And From This Point On, We’re Logging Every Troll That Tries to Shut It Down.
The Controlled Nature of Reddit: Unveiling the Truth Behind the FacadeIn an age where information is abundant yet often questionable, the authenticity of platforms like Reddit has come into serious
YouTube channel from 2016-2019 about mkultra, British royal family and tunnels being under DisneylandYouTube channel from 2016-2019 about mkultra, British royal family and tunnels being under Disneyland
Seeking Gems of the Past: A Search for a Unique YouTube ChannelIn the digital age, our favorite content can sometimes feel fleeting. As an avid consumer of high-quality documentary-style videos,
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.