<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><title>Undisciplined wrote</title><author_name>Undisciplined (npub1t4…w4jj5)</author_name><author_url>https://yabu.me/npub1t49ker2fyy2xc5y7qrsfxrp6g8evsxluqmaq09xt7uuhhzsurm3srw4jj5</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://yabu.me</provider_url><html>The reason &#34;No new wars&#34; was a popular campaign talking point is that they tend to become disastrous and expensive. How any particular instance turns out is irrelevant to this being a violation of &#34;No new wars&#34;.&#xA;&#xA;Also, Iraq is the wrong standard to hold &#34;No new wars&#34; to. The &#34;new wars&#34; being referenced are all of Obama&#39;s wars of choice, which were much smaller scale than Iraq or Afghanistan. In that light, any intervention on par with Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc. is a violation of that pledge (if it was actually a pledge).</html></oembed>