The United States has active military interventions in Iraq and Syria and has thousands of military personnel stationed in over 100 countries around the world. These ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Syria as well as potential conflicts involving North Korea, Iran, China, Russia and especially ISIS have been heated subjects of debate throughout the course of this election cycle. And each promises to continue to be have tremendous ramifications long after November 8th. With support of U.S. intervention abroad waning it becomes essential to consider the foreign policy stances of Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as it relates to possible U.S. military intervention in any of these potential conflicts.
Judging from their policy positions and rhetoricon national defense and foreign policy it would appear as though each may favor foreign intervention. Neither Clinton nor Trump are non-interventionists. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are likely to intervene overseas if elected president, albeit for different reasons.
And this would accord with the historical record. Both Democrats and Republicans intervene in foreign conflicts. What changes are the reasons. So when voting on November 8th, if your vote in partially contingent on foreign policy and national defense don’t vote for the “anti-war” candidate, because there isn’t one. Vote for the candidate who’s reasoning for war most approximates that which you believe is in the best interests of the United States.