If you want a return to a neocon foreign policy, then Hillary is your kind of president.

Hillary Clinton will order a "full review" of the United States' strategy on Syria as a "first key task" of her presidency, resetting the policy to emphasise the "murderous" nature of the Assad regime, foreign policy adviser with her campaign has said.
Jeremy Bash, who served as chief of staff for the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency, said Mrs Clinton would both escalate the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and work to get Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, "out of there".

Bash is just the latest Clinton advisor to promise a war against the Assad regime.

Since the days of Ronald Reagan, every president has felt it necessary to prove how tough they are by bombing brown-skinned people. It doesn’t matter which party.

  In the case of President Hillary Clinton, we already know which country she will likely be bombing, and we don’t need to read the NY Post to know it.

The woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.   
   Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for “limited military coercion” to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a “no bombing” zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels.

  Hillary was already on record for supporting the bombing of the Assad government in 2013.

In October 2015, Clinton broke with the Obama administration and said she would declare a no-fly zone over parts of Syria.
And there is Panetta.

And earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help “moderate” groups against President Bashal al-Assad. (When Panetta gave a belligerent speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night, he was interrupted by chants from the delegates on the floor of “no more war!”
Last month, CNAS published a report
of a “Study Group” on military policy in Syria on the eve of the organization’s
annual conference. Ostensibly focused on how to defeat the Islamic State, the
report recommends new US military actions against the Assad regime....

Panetta served as Defense Secretary and CIA Director in the Obama administration
when Clinton was Secretary of State, and was Clinton’s ally on Syria policy.
On July 17, he gave
an interview to CBS News in which he called for steps that partly complemented
and partly paralleled the recommendations in the CNAS paper.

“I think the likelihood is that the next president is gonna have to consider
adding additional special forces on the ground,” Panetta said, “to try to assist
those moderate forces that are taking on ISIS and that are taking on Assad’s
forces.”

Adding to this is an ongoing rift in the State Department of people who think we aren't generating enough carnage in our foreign policy.

   An internal rift over the U.S.- Syria policy could be a headache inherited by the next president, analysts say, because the Obama administration appears unlikely to dramatically alter its current policy.
   In a memo, 51 State Department diplomats indicated their dissatisfaction with the status quo, saying they back stepped-up military engagement that includes targeted airstrikes against the Syrian regime.
   Many of those mostly mid-level employees are likely to be around during the next presidency, Atlantic Council Middle East analyst Faysal Itani said.
  “The next president is going to inherit this internal debate within the State Department that has shifted at least the debate focus of U.S. policy in the run-up to the elections,” Itani said.
   It is a view shared by Richard Haass, a former State Department policy planning director.
“Even if what they [the diplomats] have to say is rejected now, it might be welcomed by the next occupant of the White House – especially if it were to be Hillary Clinton, who, as secretary of state, showed considerable willingness to use military force in pursuit of U.S. foreign policy aims,” said Haass, in an article for the Council on Foreign Relations.

There are complications with this invasion. For instance, Iran has gone “all in” defending the Assad regime, so an invasion of Syria means Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran will be history.

  And then there is this.

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 direct confrontation with the Syrian regime and Russian forces.”

A military confrontation with a nuclear superpower. What’s not to like?

And then, of course, there is the outcome.

If Hillary becomes president and gets her way with a Syria “re-set” the prime beneficiary will be radical Islamists. There literally is no secular, moderate opposition to the Assad government.

How do we know the jihadists will come out on top? Her last great intervention, the “liberation” of Libya should be precedent. Gaddafi was no angel, but until shortly before he was overthrown he was a Washington ally, a secular counterpart to creeping Islamization of the region. After the 2011 “liberation” strongly backed by Hillary, Libya has turned into a hellhole of competing radical Islamist militias and warlords. ISIS and al-Qaeda were unheard of in Libya before Hillary got her hands on it. Now it is rotten with them.

When it comes to Syria, Hillary means war.

That pretty well sums it up.