Are Dictators Better Than Chaos?

Are Dictators Better Than Chaos?

On September 30, 2015, a three-star Russian general walked into the US embassy in Baghdad, said "airstrikes [in Syria] start in one hour," then walked out. The general's brusk manner was an affront to Washington and in many ways exemplified the extent to which the US had failed yet again in its efforts to promote stability following a popular uprising against an autocratic regime in the Mid-East. To be sure, America's Mid-East foreign policy has been, generally speaking, a disaster. The US o
Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.

2 thoughts on “Are Dictators Better Than Chaos?

  1. Benevolent dictators may be best.
    Non-benevolent dictators are necessary for dangerous areas where miscreants threaten harm to the majority of the population and stability of the region.
    Obama lost everything by destroying the remaining stability in North Africa. He really put a US munitions whooping to another backward area and was praised for it. Of course the people we didn’t want to be in power knew enough to seize all the leftover weapons to start jihad and continual tribal warfare.
    Now 2 Marines will be counseling a 4F. Very interesting.
    If this fails I am throwing my hat in the ring to be grand superior imperial potentate.

Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.