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 to outadmin Cancel reply
Related Post
Congrats to the new King of Canada!🇨🇦Congrats to the new King of Canada!🇨🇦
Congratulations to the new King of Canada! 🇨🇦 Note: A global banker with no prior elected experience has now been appointed as Prime Minister of Canada.
CNN says it will cost 88 billion dollars to deport illegal immigrants. How could it be more expensive than giving them $10,000 debit card and $1400 of food stamps a month?CNN says it will cost 88 billion dollars to deport illegal immigrants. How could it be more expensive than giving them $10,000 debit card and $1400 of food stamps a month?
The High Cost of Deportation: Analyzing the Financial Implications Recent reports from CNN indicate that the estimated cost of deporting undocumented immigrants could reach a staggering $88 billion. This figure
Where’s the Epstein, 9/11, and JFK Assassination Files we were promised day 1? Why didn’t Trump release them his first term either? Looks like our greatest ally Israel that has blackmail on our entire government is behind all 3 attacks on the USAWhere’s the Epstein, 9/11, and JFK Assassination Files we were promised day 1? Why didn’t Trump release them his first term either? Looks like our greatest ally Israel that has blackmail on our entire government is behind all 3 attacks on the USA
Where are the promised files on Epstein, 9/11, and the JFK assassination? Why didn’t Trump release them during his first term? It appears that our key ally, Israel, which has
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.