Martin: Iraq bad, Libya good?

At long last, the 2016 Democratic presidential hopefuls debated one another.

It was a tame affair compared to what we've seen on the Republican side so far. And while I can't say I agreed with much of anything that was said from the lecterns, the discourse was refreshingly focused on ideas.

As my editor at Rare Politics, Matt Purple, wrote on Wednesday, "there was no half an hour prelude for the moderators to poke Donald Trump with sticks; no catfights over slights leveled at Jeb Bush's wife." The conversation was about policy and policy only, as debates should be.

But political observers didn't watch the debate to learn about the candidate's policy preferences so much as they tuned in to see how the presidential aspirants would engage one another.

Would Bernie attack Hillary? Would Hillary try to steal Bernie's progressive limelight? Would O'Malley command any attention? It was all about the dance.

Yet one policy position did catch me somewhat off guard: that Hillary Clinton still thinks the United States' military intervention in Libya was a good idea. Or, as she put it, "smart power at its best."

Really, Madam Secretary?

Last I checked, the 15-month-old Libyan civil war has the country teetering on failed state status, and ISIS is now sniffing around looking for ways to exploit the post-Gaddafi instability.

That doesn't sound like a scenario you'd want to hang your foreign policy hat on, does it? You might want to run from that, right?

"I think President Obama made the right decision."

Oh, OK. I guess we're going to stick to our guns here. But how, Madam, can you argue that Libya is better off and our country is safer thanks to America's involvement?

"The Libyan people had a free election. The first one since 1951."

Um, I'm going to stop you right there. Let's not use elections as the litmus test for our overseas military forays. Because, sorry to point this out, they've had quite a few of those election thingys in Iraq, that place where our post-9/11 military intervention was, according to your co-debater Bernie Sanders, "the worst decision in American history."

Simply put, your foreign policy record is pretty terrible, Madam. There's no sugarcoating it. Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a blunder, and you voted for it in the Senate. The decision to "lead from behind," deposing Muammar Gaddafi in Libya resulted in a civil war, and you gave it the thumbs-up as secretary of state.

Back in 2011, when the Obama administration and its fans were congratulating themselves on a really terrific job toppling Gaddafi, New York Times international affairs writer Roger Cohen noted with glee that the "United States took out Libya's air defense system. It provided more than 70 percent of the surveillance, intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities. It flew 70 percent of refueling missions."

Sure, the U.S might have led from behind, but we played an integral part overthrowing Gaddafi - who, I should note, acted as a sorta/kinda ally in America's War on Terror.

The war in Iraq was a mistake. Thousands of American soldiers died there, the total financial cost could hit $2 trillion, and a huge chunk of the country now operates as an ISIS playground. You thought invading was a good idea. Then you thought getting involved in Libya was "smart power."

Both were horrible choices. And though the human and financial costs of Iraq have been greater than in Libya, the upshots of the two escapades are increased regional instability and a less safe United States.

A president's number-one job is to protect America, and I hate to break it to you, Hillary, but you've got a great track record of endangering us.

David Allen Martin is a syndicated columnist who writes from Chattanooga. Email him at davidallenmartin423@gmail.com and follow him on Twitter @DMart423.