A bit more on Syria.

A lot of Obama fans are saying he "learned from Libya" not to get involved in Syria. There are some problems with that.

First, Syria isn't Libya, just as Libya isn't Iraq, just as Iraq wasn't Afghanistan. This habit of trying to generalize and draw "rules" is always a mistake, as well as lazy, ignoring that even Muslim dictatorships are different, as are the circumstances that might call for-or against-military action. Every case needs to be examined on its own merits, not by comparison with other places and situations which may be very different. (For that matter Korea and Vietnam were very different as well.)

Second, Obama didn't learn from Libya. In both Syria and Libya he acted belatedly and in split-the-difference fashion, without a long term strategy. In Libya, the results may have been bad for Libyans, but Syria has been a disaster for the West, destabilizing Europe, helping to bring Trump to power and helping Putin. That was because Obama didn't stay out of Syria, he did just enough to prolong the war.  That suggests, though it doesn't prove, that Hillary was right in wanting to do more immediately to help the rebels (not all of whom at the time were anti-Western). Or that Obama should have actually done nothing, rather than drawing red lines he then ignored.

None of which means supporting Trump now: Trump isn't Obama, much less Hillary. He is an evil ignorant clown and nothing he touches can be expected to turn out for the good, never mind the best. But I oppose Trump, without embracing Obama's policies, or adopting the view that US military intervention is always wrong. As I said, case by case, situation by situation.