>>Tulsi was correct about the foreign policy of other
>>candidates, BUT she doesn't stand on solid ground
>thereabouts
>>herself. Beyond "ending imperalism, ending the wars" she's
>>wild suspect.
>
>To me the odd thing is that her wording is so hyper-specific,
>instead of just referring to imperialism as a behavior and war
>as an outcome of it. I'm aware, but only in the very general
>sense, that any phrase a presidential candidate repeats
>regularly has been focus-grouped within an inch of its life,
>so when she says "end regime change wars" it's very
>intentional and means something specific. But I'd love to hear
>her spend more time describing why she landed on that term
>specifically because every time I hear it, all I can think is
>that it sounds like it was crafted to:
>
>a)make her sound like the anti-imperialist candidate
>b)still provide some cover for some wars, some of the time

It is hyper-specific and intentionally so. The reason she uses that language so precisely is because regime change interventionism is precisely what has been responsible for the most historic blunder in U.S. foreign policy history: the Iraq invasion - which led to the Libya debacle - which now threatens to repeat the same errors in Syria. Regime-change is the lineage of CIA meddling and manipulating in sovereign nations to try and influence outcomes in our favor - and it has always yielded disastrous results - be it our installment of the Shah in Iran, our abysmal history and disastrous results in Latin America - or our criminal intervention in the Middle East. Tulsi isn’t a pacifist - but she understands what so few seem to grasp in our body politic: that our military has been hijacked and used to destabilize entire regions for veiled interests that do not serve the people in America nor the people in the countries we engage in.

We have to fundamentally change our prescription of foreign policy and be judicious in our use of force. Tulsi understands this and is unapologetic about getting this critical message out.


-->