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
Women in france attacked with syringes.Women in france attacked with syringes.
Title: Disturbing Incidents at French Music Festival: A Call for Awareness and DiscussionRecent reports have surfaced about alarming incidents involving women who were attacked with syringes during the Fête de
Curtis Yarvinās Plot Against AmericaCurtis Yarvinās Plot Against America
Unveiling the Speculative Framework: Curtis Yarvin’s Vision of AmericaIn recent discussions surrounding the complexities of American society and governance, Curtis Yarvin—an influential thinker and political commentator—has introduced ideas that challenge
Bidenās Autopen Scandal Grows As Watchdog Finds āNo Evidenceā Former POTUS Knew About Signed OrdersBidenās Autopen Scandal Grows As Watchdog Finds āNo Evidenceā Former POTUS Knew About Signed Orders
The Autopen Controversy: New Insights Into Biden’s Signed OrdersIn recent weeks, a significant controversy has emerged surrounding President Joe Biden and the use of an autopen for signing official documents.
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.