Try again. Hillary Clinton is the most pro-war, anti-Russia candidate on the Democrat side. She is more hawkish than even Ted Cruz was on the Republican side.

Here's an article by Jeffrey Sachs, director of Earth Institute at Columbia University, on The Huffington Post (a left leaning site) saying the same thing:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-c...

You're half right. She wants war and doesn't care who with.

Even worse. She thinks that she can win.

Clinton is easily one of the most pro-war (meaning an aggressive and militaristic foreign policy) candidates since the end of Vietnam. Many sources on that but I'll link just two.[1][2] Her focus is primarily on Russia, as she openly stated during one of the Democratic debates (given a choice between Iran, Russia, and North Korea, she picked them as "the greatest threat"). The entire Syria thing is largely a proxy war with Russia.[3] She was the main voice that argued against the Pentagon and convinced Obama to get involved in Libya. Whether you want to call it neoconservativism, neoliberalism, neocolonialism, or just liberal internationalism, she is the leading champion for U.S. invasions and war across the world these days.[4][5]

[1] http://www.cato.org/blog/2016-presidential-candidate-interve...

[2] http://johnpilger.com/articles/silencing-america-as-it-prepa...

[3] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n01/seymour-m-hersh/military-to-mil...

[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/opinion/sunday/are-neocons...

[5] http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/clintons-haw...