The American Conservative

The Saudis and their allies think they have a green light from Washington to do as they like without any consequences.

The so-called “model” intervention made things worse precisely because it “succeeded” in toppling the regime.

Obama has probably done more to discredit “humanitarian” interventionism with his policies than any other recent president.

In the last twenty years, Clinton has never seen a military intervention that she thought was unnecessary or too risky.

There are other likely choices that would be a better fit with Clinton and would be even more likely to share her foreign policy priorities.

Trump missed his last major chance to make the election more competitive.

Trump mostly failed to use Clinton’s foreign policy record against her.

Almost everything in her foreign policy record says that this is how she will govern.

If we take the last resort standard seriously, it means that preventive war can never be an option because it is inherently too hasty and unjust. .

Kaine ought to be questioned about his early and eager backing for the Saudis’ unnecessary and ruinous war.

We shouldn’t forget how irresponsible and reckless Cameron’s foreign policy was.

Acquiring plunder is what he thinks U.S. foreign policy is for.

It’s not possible for a war of choice to be fought as a last resort, and Clinton’s record is filled with support for wars of choice.

Johnson had a chance to show that he had better foreign policy judgment and understanding than Clinton and Trump, and he blew it.

Since Clinton was one of the main advocates for intervention in Libya, she is responsible for at least part of the deterioration in relations with Moscow that followed.

The creation of “no-fly zones” in the past has always been followed by an expansion of the mission.

Clinton is a liberal hawk and has favored every military intervention the U.S. has undertaken for the last twenty years (and some that it hasn’t yet done).