Beyond Foreign Policy Dualism

 What I'm gleaning from foreign policy article I'm reading...

-in 2011, Libyan dictator Qadaffi threatened genocide on his ppl while the world looked on. The US intervened and helped rebel forces overthrow Qadaffi. Our actions had disastrous consequences and destabilized the region. 

-in 2013, Syrian dictator Assad threatened to slaughter his ppl and rebels. Genocide. We did not intervene and our non-action had disastrous consequences and destabilized the world. Apparently, we should have armed 'moderate' rebels in Syria.

- in the 1980s we armed moderate rebels in Afghanistan which led to disastrous consequences and they turned against America with our own training and became terrorists.

- in 2001 we armed moderate rebels in Afghanistan. 18 yrs later we're still there and the gov is still unstable and about to collapse.

-  in the 1980s we armed moderate rebels in Central America, and that led to death squads that have turned into radical gangs causing entire villages to flee from the violence to this day.

- in 1990s Somalia we armed moderate rebels, semi-intervened, and got dragged into a war.

- In Sudan, we didn't arm rebels, and the massacre has continued. 

Does anyone notice that the solution isn't arming or not arming rebels, killing or not killing dictators? The disastrous consequences seem to come regardless of our dualistic actions of kill or let them kill. So maybe we should be looking for different responses, based on different indicators? Maybe another solution is out there...

-maybe we should educate and arm the women of the countries?

- maybe the model of western capitalism that we spread around the world is a fundamentally unstable, psychotic, and dangerous system that leads to inequalities. And those inequalities give rise to religious zealots and radicals that perpetuate a cycle of fighting over small supplies and stirring endless civil war?