The neocons and neolibs are constantly trying to get the United States into war; instead of trying to solve situations by diplomacy first, and war as a last resort, they use war as a first resort, and ask questions later.
What has been the result of the "neo" foreign policy the last two decades?
First they encouraged military action in the former Yugoslavia. False reports of 250,000 people killed and mass rapes were spread. The Serbs in Bosnia and Serbia were attacked by NATO. What is the result? There is totally instability in all of the regions of the former Yugoslavia. Numerous Mafia drug gangs run rampant, and many people across the former Yugoslavia are very poor and without jobs, and many are starving. Islamic terrorist groups have a fertile training ground in various parts of Bosnia and Kosovo.
The US invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to get rid of Al Qaeda. The Taliban was defeated temporarily, but was never fully expelled from power. The Taliban has regrouped and has the support of many of the various ethnic groups in Afghanistan. The neos never learned the lessons of the British and Soviets in Afghanistan. There is no stable government there. Hamid Karzai is often mockingly referred to as the “Mayor of Kabul” because he controls very little territory.
In 2003 the US invaded Iraq on the basis of “weapons of mass destruction”, which were never found. The neos were proven wrong again. Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator, was overthrown and the Shiites, who are allied with Iran, took over. There was mass infighting among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. There is still no stability - and there is no reason to think that Iraq will stand as a unified country. Moreover, the Iraqis wanted the US troops out.
The neos supported overthrowing the governments in Egypt and Libya, and the results were having governments that supported terrorists such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
The US troops are still in Afghanistan more than a decade later. Many neos have been crying for an invasion of Iran for over 20 years, and many were urging an attack on Syria last year. Thankfully, the American people, who were tired of all these wars, overwhelmingly opposed military actions, as did most of our allies.
They say no one is "perfect", but in this sense the neos are. They have been wrong 100% of the time. No matter how often they are proven wrong, neos like John McCain, John Podhoretz, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry still want to engage in more military interventions.
One has to question the motives of the neos. If they really want a war on terror, why did they support terrorists in the Balkans, Libya, and Egypt, and are currently supporting Al Qaeda - backed rebels in Syria? Every place, in which the neos urged military actions over the last twenty years has much greater instability than before the military action. Could that be a coincidence, or do they really want more instability in the world - and for what reason?
by Victor Dedaj