Our political culture has degraded to the point where it encourages the worst presidential temptations—and we’ve made waging war nearly as easy as firing off a tweet.
The Trump administration, like the Obama administration before it, is militarily invested in Iraq and Syria. Yet it has no strategic vision for Syria after the fight against ISIS is over.
If a few tear-jerker images can move President Trump (or anyone) to support a war that he always opposed, we’re in bad shape indeed.
Because Syrian President Bashar al-Assad continues to possess weapons of mass destruction, and has now used them twice, a U.S. response was warranted.
America has launched air strikes against the Syrian regime, but do we have a strategy yet for Syria? Or do we have too many?
President Trump once said the U.S. should stay out of Syria. Then he bombed airbases there. The case for strikes is better than the case for all out war.
Chemical weapons attacks by the Assad regime in Syria have amplified calls for military intervention there. We need some key questions answered first.
On the centennial of America’s entry into World War I, the reasons we went to war hold an eerie resemblance to issues facing our country today.
We shouldn’t need humanitarian prompting to care about Syria. We should care because we’re terrified of the implications for our own interests and security.
Both President Trump and the United Nations appear unlikely to take any significant steps toward ending Bashar al Assad’s reign of terror.
Defeating ISIS would most likely necessitate a holistic, long-term approach in Iraq along the lines of the 2007 surge. But this would cost the president significant political capital.
When asked if America’s foreign policy since 9/11 has made us more or less safe, a non-dangling-chad majority (51 percent) said ‘less safe.’
America faces an international order that’s unstable and in disarray. If Trump doesn’t act to restore that order, we may soon find ourselves in another war.
Liberal interventionism and neoconservatism offer us the same militaristic approaches. It’s time for a new, more thoughtful approach to our foreign policy.
‘My name is Islamic soldier. . . You have to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq.’
U.S. efforts to remake Afghanistan in its own image fostered corruption and cronyism, a new report finds.
Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s foreign policies can be seen as classic examples of idealism overpowering cold analysis of facts.
Sean Hannity and Bret Stephens can duke it out all they want over nativism or neoconservatism in foreign policy, but their world will soon be over.
Here’s the fundamental paradox of libertarian populism: the more libertarian it becomes, the less populist it is.
- ‘Rick And Morty’ Is Incredibly Depressing And Doesn’t Deserve Its PopularityThe television show proclaims the insignificance of allcontinue reading >
- Bill Nye In 1996: Chromosomes Determine If You’re A Boy Or GirlBill Nye the 'science guy' used to tell everyone chromocontinue reading >
- The Real Story Behind ESPN’s Wednesday MassacreFrom poor financial decisions that are no longer payingcontinue reading >