Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, believes that because Saddam Hussein was a brutal and erratic dictator, he needed to be removed to open the possibility to a better future for Iraq — the only solution to the root cause of terrorism. But removing Hussein led Iraq into chaos instead — a chaos that has now spread well beyond Iraq’s borders. Notwithstanding this manifest failure, Clinton went on to support regime change in Libya — with similarly chaotic results that she has similarly ignored. Her great regret today appears to be that Syria has managed to descend into chaos largely without American help.
Her response to Trump — and the media pile-on that has parroted it — barely deigns to acknowledge that Trump is making an argument worth refuting. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who supported terrorism. Ergo, it cannot be possible that removing him from power was a bad idea that was doomed to make things worse. Trump purportedly learned “twisted lessons” from history — but what lessons did Clinton herself learn from a history she helped shape?
Clinton’s neoconservative tilt in foreign policy is not news — and that’s precisely what is wrong with it. She’s the candidate of experience, but she seems incapable of learning from it — her overall worldview is virtually unchanged from what it was 20 years ago. If Trump’s views feel like little more than an emotional reflex, Clinton’s feel eerily faith-based. And the one thing they appear to share in common is a groundless conviction in the efficacy of force properly applied.