General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A Hawk Named Hillary [View all]bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)If I understand kissinger (and I'd admit to having avoided much of the controversy over him over the years), his ideal was stability was best, even if the status quo sucked. So I'd imagine he would have sided with Assad. On the other hand, there was already significant instability there, and perhaps the better alternative was to overthrow a failed leader quickly and create a stable government under a different regime. Recent experience in Afghanistan and Iraq notwithstanding, I'm inclined to think that either of those choices would have been ok - let him win (or help him win), or replace him. End the war, end the destruction of lives. Both could be described as hawkish.
Obama's approach was similar to what was applied throughout the Arab Spring uprisings - limited military support for the will of the people involved, and no support for corrupt regimes. I think it worked well in some cases. Libya, for example, was a fast war of limited destruction, and the opportunity (whether taken or not) of a lasting peace to follow.
But it has worked miserably in the case of Syria. Hillary's approach may have led to a better result, as we have a terrible result currently - a long grinding civil war, countless shattered lives, and little hope for a lasting peace. Helping Assad may have also led to a better result, in a quicker peace, less destruction, and perhaps the opportunity to apply leverage toward a more just government structure after the war.
I don't dislike people for having to make difficult decisions, as long as intentions are sound, all facts are taken into account, and the goal is peace.