Just heard Rand Paul talking about how Rudi Guiliani and John Bolton are too hawkish when it comes to the wisdom of American-driven regime change in the middle east, with regards to their possibly being the secretary of state.
I have to agree. While I'm a fan, both Guiliani and Bolton still believe it was a good idea to occupy Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein and Qadaffi in Libya. Both are provable disasters and not only would the middle east be more stable had we left them alone, we wouldn't be there at all getting maimed and killed now 14 years later with no end in sight.
Can anybody point to a single positive result of our meddling, hawkish agenda in the middle east, that balances the costs to us in blood and treasure of that meddling?
Rand Paul(and I) believe it would be better, not to mention more consistent with Trump's position, for the Sec State to understand that American-driven regime change in the middle east was a mistake.
1 comment:
"Can anybody point to a single positive result...?"
Nope.
Post a Comment