It was then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, along with CIA director David H. Petraeus, developed a plan of arming and training Syrian rebels to overthrow Syrian President Assad in 2012. Will Clinton kick off an all-out war against the Syrian leader if she assumes the presidency?
US proponents of a muscular foreign policy in Syria are pinning their hopes on presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and with good reason: since the very beginning of the Syrian turmoil then Secretary of State Clinton had advocated tough approach towards Damascus.
Michael R. Gordon and Mark Landler of the New York Times narrated that back in 2012 then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton privately teamed up with CIA director David H. Petraeus to develop a plan of arming "the Syrian resistance" to topple Bashar al-Assad — the Syrian legitimate leader.
"The idea was to vet the rebel groups and train fighters, who would be supplied with weapons. The plan had risks, but it also offered the potential reward of creating Syrian allies with whom the United States could work, both during the conflict and after President Bashar al-Assad's eventual removal," the journalists wrote in February 2013, adding that the plan was rebuffed by Barack Obama as a risky one.
However, after she had left the White House Clinton continued to call for more assertive and aggressive US foreign policy in Syria.
For instance, she propagated the creation of a so-called "no-fly zone" in Syria in 2015.
"I personally would be advocating now for a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors to try to stop the carnage on the ground and from the air, to try to provide some way to take stock of what's happening, to try to stem the flow of refugees," Clinton told NBC affiliate WHDH in Boston.
It is worth mentioning that NATO's airstrikes that bombed Libya into chaos were preceded by the implementation of a strikingly similar no-fly zone in the region.
Furthermore, in late September 2015 Hillary Clinton told NBC News that she regarded defeating Daesh and toppling Bashar al-Assad as equally top priorities.
2--Keynes explains why the economy won't rebalance (fix itself)--The true meaning of “In the long run we are all dead”
The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.
Keynes wrote this in one of his earlier works, The Tract on Monetary Reform, in 1923. It should be clear that he is not arguing that we should recklessly enjoy the present and let the future go hang. He is exasperated with the view of mainstream economists that the economy is an equilibrium system which will eventually return to a point of balance, so long as the government doesn’t interfere and if we are only willing to wait. He later challenged that view in his most important work The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1935). arguing that the economy can slip into a long term underemployment equilibrium from which only government policy can rescue it.
Unemployment is the great scourge of economic life. It is far more pervasive than the hyperinflation that Fergusson and others worry about. Hyperinflation is very rare and usually occurs following wars or other major dislocations. We know how it can be stopped e.g. Bolivia’s 1985 hyperinflation was stopped in ten days – this was one of the few 20th century hyperinflations not to be caused by war or revolution. It is a very damaging but rare disease.
Unemployment causes enormous harm to individuals and families, reduces long term potential output as people lose their skill and motivation and can last for many years. The appalling rates of unemployment in southern Europe are doing great damage right now, as well as storing up serious political problems for the future (once again I have to cite the fact that the Nazis achieved power in Germany on the back of mass unemployment, not inflation). It is in this sense that economists should not let themselves off the hook by saying that these countries will somehow eventually return to full employment if we are just patient. This is both immoral and incorrect.