Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to be in good health to take it to the enemy if that’s what we need to do. That discussion is underway, and many are weighing their options. We’ve been on a war footing for a long time—since 9/11. The stress of maintaining that pace has left us with a fractured psyche here at home. It’s important to mention the incredible number of veteran suicides we’ve seen. Many veterans are suffering from mental anguish after their service. There’s got to be a different way to help shape the world for the better and in our interest. Yet we’re entrenched in a system and battles that we cannot escape from without endangering ourselves.

Hillary has stated publicly that if Iran provoked a war with the Israelis, the U.S. would retaliate. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and our defense of that nation ought to be stalwart. However, pre-emptive messaging plays a role, too. Sometimes things in life become self-fulfilling prophecies. The Intercept reported that Hillary’s would-be secretary of defense is already advocating for more intervention.

It might be a different proposition for most Americans and those within the military industrial complex. Alternative candidates are popping up with popularity and advocating for an increased effort to address issues stateside. Our budgetary problems and internal issues pose a national security threat as well.

The Inquisitr reported that President Putin addressed a crowd, saying, “If it’s Hillary Clinton, it’s war.” But this might not be based on reliable reporting. More reliable, however, is that Putin and Clinton are not known to be fond of one another. I wrote in another piece how the two hadn’t found a way to have civil discourse. But, shoddy reporting or not, the personalities who would be involved in the next world war are present in Syria, the only exception being North Korea. That conflict and others tensions around the globe are not dimming. There might not be all-out open warfare, but there’s an interwoven web of proxy wars and increasing tensions all around.

Eurasia is becoming more violent and unstable, particularly in areas with heavy Russian influence. The Middle East is suffering growing pains. The entire region has devolved, centered in large part around Syria’s civil war. Our European allies are drowning in domestic troubles, Brexit just being a symptom of it. The Far East is beginning to come into its own. That is both good and bad for our interests abroad, as these nations will look for more independence from the United States.

Back to possible Clinton presidential foreign policy doctrine: Here’s an excerpt from a story run in The Intercept. The following are comments made by Michelle Flourney, Hillary’s possible future secretary of defense:

This week, Flournoy specifically advocated what she called “limited military coercion” to oust Assad. In August 2014, Obama announced what he called “limited airstrikes in Iraq” — and they’re still continuing almost two years later. Also, note the clinical euphemism Flournoy created — “military coercion” — for creating a “no-bomb zone” that would entail “a declaratory policy backed up by the threat of force. ‘If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian assets,’” she said. Despite D.C. conventional wisdom that Obama is guilty of “inaction” in Syria, he has sent substantial aid, weapons, and training to Syrian rebels while repeatedly bombing ISIS targets in Syria.

Even U.S. military officials have said that these sorts of no-fly or no-bomb guarantees Flournoy is promising — which Hillary Clinton herself has previously advocated—would risk a military confrontation with Russia. Obama’s defense secretary, Ash Carter, told a Senate hearing last December that the policy Clinton advocates “would require ‘substantial’ ground forces and would put the U.S. military at risk of a confrontation with the Syrian regime and Russian forces.”