Is Hillary Clinton a Wolfowitz in sheep’s clothing?

Paul Wolfowitz, architect of the Iraq War, announced this past weekend his intention to vote for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Wolfowitz joins a growing number of high profile neoconservatives that have crossed the political DMZ to endorse Clinton. Foreign policy hawks, who seek to inject the American military into conflicts around the globe, regard Secretary Clinton as an apostle of their global strategy.  

Benefiting from Donald Trump’s shallow understanding of global affairs and his uncanny ability to dominate the news cycle, Secretary Clinton has been allowed to scuttle by without answering difficult questions regarding her support of the Iraq War and other neoconservative projects abroad. These military endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq have perpetuated wars without end, killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions.

{mosads}Meanwhile, establishment Republicans, quick to criticize Clinton for the Benghazi affair, remain conspicuously silent on her decision to intervene in Libya in the first place. Contrasted with unanimous condemnation of the Iraq War, Clinton has received little to no criticism for orchestrating the 2011 regime change in Libya, which left the country spiraling into chaos.

Secretary Clinton, obstinate in the defense of her military action, was pressed to answer questions on Libya in a rare 2015 interview. Responding to condemnation from Bernie Sanders, Clinton outlined the moral obligation of the United States to remove “a murderous dictator, Gadhafi, who had American blood on his hands.”

Secretary Clinton’s logic for justifying intervention is consistent with recent American foreign policy blunders and her previous public positions. President Obama has since admitted the handling of Gadhafi’s removal and its aftermath represents the “worst mistake” of his presidency.

Secretary Clinton’s hawkish approach traces its genealogy back to the revolutionary 1992 Wolfowitz Doctrine, which first outlined the strategic value of “pre-emptive” interventions to meet post Cold War geopolitical objectives. The unapologetic removal of dictators as licensed by the Wolfowitz Doctrine underwrites American interventions in Libya, Iraq and Kosovo.

With her sanction of the aforementioned military operations, Secretary Clinton joins the company of Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Senator Lindsey Graham and a host of former Bush Administration foreign policy officials. To borrow a phrase from a Clinton speech last week, “tell me what company you keep and I’ll tell you what you are.”

Given her track record in Libya, it is only logical to assume a President Hillary Clinton would immediately look to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad —  and risk a confrontation with his chief backer, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Until Secretary Clinton comes clean and convinces voters she is no Wolfowitz in sheep’s clothing, she should be considered an equally dangerous presidential alternative to Trump.

Krishna Gall is a recent graduate from Boston University. In 2016 he wrote “Daedalus Syndrome: American Intervention in Kosovo,” a senior thesis paper that earned The Ambassador Hermann Frederick Eilts Undergraduate Thesis Award

The views of Contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.