Saddam Hussein gassing Kurdish villages, al-Qaeda attacking the US on 9/11, and ISIS killing just about anybody who isn't ISIS isn't a good thing, we can all agree to that, but it seems only the Libertarians have any objections to our solutions to the Middle East. Both the Republicans and Democrats are on the same page, for the most part.

The Libertarian objection, which is an objection based on principle - a general hands-off approach they apply to everything - is usually met with, "But we MUST do SOMETHING to help them. We can't just sit idly by while people get massacred and we can't allow radical Islam to gain in strength because they will become better able to attack us again. You Libertarians are a bunch of idealistic wackos who are all too happy to let the enemy defeat us while maintaining your smug, this-is-the-peaceful-and-therefor-morally-superior-stance bullcrap."

I was one of the Republicans saying this. My position was the morally superior position because it was reality, not idealism. It would actually save lives.

Or so I thought.

You can read the rest of the article on my blog: [We Should Have Listened to the Libertarians About the Middle East](http://kirbyhopper.com/should-have-listened-to-libertarians-about-middle-east/)

![welcome-to-fallujah.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmfNpXFVggbwGZb6dC3XP5HeKdvEc9dSDVpLciBt8EH9yN/welcome-to-fallujah.jpg)
[source](http://kirbyhopper.com/should-have-listened-to-libertarians-about-middle-east/)