How Obama And Clinton Escalated Foreign Conflicts

Throughout his presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to end the war in the Middle East. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton vowed to protect the American people by promoting stable foreign relations and establishing the United States as a peaceful power.

Both failed miserably.

While Obama promised to end the war as he took office in 2009, his coworkers joined the bloodlust as Hillary Clinton and other key members of government manipulated the system to promote a state of war, one which the United States was heavily involved in.

The Daily Caller reports:

Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were wary. On the contrary, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and some junior administration staffers joined the bloodlust. They eventually won the support of then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, Rhodes and Biden’s national security adviser, Antony Blinken.

Under President Obama’s Presidency, the United States intervened in the dictatorship in Libya, leading to yet another struggle which lasted years. While the United States is said to have “led from behind” and let European countries have much of the control, the situation grew exponentially violent when the United States became involved.

The Daily Caller reports:

“Cameron and Sarkozy were really pushing hard on this. This is where the phrase ‘leading from behind’ comes from. The French and the Brits were really …  in the lead here,” Inboden told The DCNF, referring to former U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy. “So the Obama administration was getting that heat and pressure from allies, which if you take alliances seriously, and if anything I think these days Obama does not take them seriously enough,  that’s definitely a factor that needs to be attended to.”

Obama contradicted his campaign promises and immediately acted in a place where he should not have intervened. The conflict led to years of debt and suffering for Americans, and Obama did not even have an end plan in mind for re-establishing the government.

The Daily Caller reports:

“The big screw up of course the Obama administration made the same mistake in Libya that the Bush administration had made in Iraq,” Inboden told TheDCNF. “Which is when you pursue regime change [but] you don’t plan for the follow-on post conflict stabilization and reconstruction efforts.”

While there was little to no foot activity by United States soldiers in Libya, Obama led an “in- between” attack by way of airstrikes and more.

The Daily Caller reports:

“This in-between course almost seems inherent to Obama’s own character and personality, it seems to be part of his disposition, and it characterized a number of his policies,” explained Inboden.


The in-between course exemplified Obama’s foreign policy. He drastically increased the use of drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, allowing the U.S. to take out key terrorist leaders without risking U.S. troops. The tactic proved ineffective, given the Taliban’s eventual resurgence. Obama followed a similar course with the Iran nuclear deal, which created a temporary roadblock to the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions, but failed to address Iran’s ballistic missiles, support for terrorism and dominant influence in Iraqi politics.

Overall, the conflict in Libya was a disaster, leading to massive body counts and more debt from foreign aid that the American people will spend years paying for.

Obama’s lenient foreign policies were only propelled by bloodthirsty Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who pushed Obama to offer aid to the Libyan people. The failure in Libya was a direct result of inaction by the Obama administration, and intervention by the same administration where it was not necessarily needed, and was directly motivated by bloodthirsty Hillary Clinton.

The Daily Caller reports:

For Clinton, the intervention in Libya seemed like an easy way to cement her legacy during a monumental moment in Middle Eastern history. As Scott Shane and Jo Becker of the New York Times noted in February, Libya had a small population of 6 million with no sectarian divisions, unlike Syria and Iraq. It also had plenty of oil. Libya was an easy target, or so it seemed.

Obama himself regrets intervening in Libya and listening to the advice of Clinton.

The Daily Caller reports:

Obama admitted his regret over the Libyan intervention in an interview with the Atlantic’s Geoffrey Goldberg in April 2016, noting he had misplaced his faith in the European partners. He did not mention whether or not he regretted giving in to Clinton.

What are your thoughts?

Did Obama propel the conflicts in Libya, thanks to Hillary Clinton and her power-driven advice?

Leave us your thoughts in the comments section below.



Leave a Reply

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