[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, Spence . . . since you think the Bush war in Iraq was unjustified, and since one of the major reasons for the war was regime change, do you think that Hillary's support for violent regime change in Libya and Syria is justified?

They're different situations. In both Libya and Syria you had active civil wars and substantial loss of civilian life. The actions in Libya were led by the EU and permitted under UN Resolutions.

Not that life under Saddam was great for everyone but it was somewhat stable and didn't pose any immediate threat to the US.

Was Qaddafi, and is Assad, more "dangerous" to the US than Saddam was? Is the present destabilization in the Middle East aided by our support for these overthrows a better thing than the destabilization caused by the overthrow of Saddam--a destabilization that was lessoned by winning the war with a re-stabilization of Iraq being gained--until Obama completely pulled us out?

The civil wars in Libya and Syria have to be put in context of a post Saddam Iraq so they really can't be compared 1 to 1.

Was Iraq really stable when we left or did both Bush and Obama policy (primarily Bush) encourage a false sense of stability by enabling Shiite rule?

Is our present involvement with various so-called "moderate" rebels and insurgents in the cause of removing Assad justified? Are we justified in air strikes against ISIS? Is our present form of war without boots on the ground a more justified war than the Iraq war? Is Hillary a more "justified" candidate for POTUS than Bush was?

I think it's justified as counter-terrorism but there's clearly a slippery slope. Today it's certainly not anything near the scale of the Iraq war nor are objectives at all similar.

Clinton's foreign policy credentials would certainly be much stronger than Bush's at the start of their first term. But, Bush could look into people's souls.