Debate: Hillary Clinton’s Judgment, as Secretary of State

The most outrageous statement on foreign policy in the Democratic debate was that Hillary Clinton defended the overthrow of Libyan Muammar Gaddafi by saying that it involved no U.S. ground troops and led to the first democratic election ever in Libya.

She forgot to mention that because of a vacuum of leadership after the dictator was toppled, the country is now experiencing chaos, tribal civil war, and the creation of terrorist enclaves and bases. Not only that, fighters and weapons from Gaddafi’s sizable storehouses are flowing into neighboring countries, destabilizing them too.

Although it is true that Republicans focusing on the Benghazi incident is political and nonsensical, the real issue is Hillary Clinton’s judgment, as Secretary of State, in pushing for such a disastrous military intervention in Libya in the first place. It seems analogous to George W. Bush’s equally catastrophic invasion of Iraq. Oops, Hillary supported that fiasco too!

Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace and Liberty at the Independent Institute. His Independent books include The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty, Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and No War for Oil: U.S. Dependency and the Middle East.
Full Biography and Recent Publications
Posts by Ivan Eland
Comments
We invite your civil and thoughtful comments. Comments will be removed if they make use of profanity, derogatory language, or personal attacks. Repeat offenders may be banned.

  • Catalyst
  • MyGovCost.org
  • FDAReview.org
  • OnPower.org
  • elindependent.org