Hillary Clinton’s Judgment As Secretary Of State – OpEd


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

Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland is a graduate of Iowa State University and received an M.B.A. in applied economics and Ph.D. in national security policy from George Washington University. He has been Director of Defense Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and he spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. He is author of the books Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, and Recarving Rushmore.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *