Hillary Clinton is an unrepentant war hawk and has been wrong on nearly every important foreign policy question she's ever had to deal with. It wasn't just her catastrophically stupid Iraq war vote (or her weak reasoning for it.) She also seriously believes that at one point we could have armed "moderate" Syrian rebels, and she supports a no-fly zone despite there being no evidence that it is helpful. She was pro-Afghanistan surge, pro-Libyan revolution and supported intervening on the side of Iranian protesters against Ahmadinejad (our long history of intervening in Iranian politics should make it clear what a disaster that would be.) She's closer to a neocon than a Democrat on foreign policy, and I find that very troubling.

I think my position on this is a tough sell because people seem to really like an interventionist America, making me an outlier. Especially with the current mess in Syria; most people seem to hate sitting on the sidelines while Russia gets to strut around with big guns and big explosions. The feeling seems to be that even if we can't do anything to effect the outcome, we should do something just to feel like we're doing something...whereas I think that a truly pragmatic Middle Eastern outlook would acknowledge that we have a difficult time telling friend from foe, that our alliance with the Sunni axis has led us into multiple unwinnable wars, that our efforts tend to cause blowback future presidents end up having to deal with, and that the most optimistic outcome is one in which we hold together a stalemate with our own soldiers and our own funds for a decade or so before we end up giving up and leaving anyway with nothing to show for it.