NATO is doing a relatively poor job, buttressed by a static decision-making process, a bureaucracy resistant to change, and unaccountable member states who are happy to cheap-ride and get away with it.

After 18 years, thousands of casualties, and a price tag that could be as high as $1 trillion, the United States has done all it can in Afghanistan. Instead of finding excuses to stay, it’s time to come home.

If Washington isn’t careful, we could be a single miscalculation away from a war that would be wholly unjustified and unnecessary to U.S. security.

Rather than preserving an indefinite presence that lets the region’s leaders off the hook at the expense of other priorities, the United States must bring our troops home.

By obsessing over an unrealistic, up-front denuclearization deal with North Korea, the president and his advisers are turning down a dead end road.

Too bad our elected officials in Congress lacked the courage to stick their necks out for this much-needed check on executive power.

Were U.S. forces not already deployed to Syria, no sane person would recommend sending in 400 U.S. troops into a complex, dangerous civil war with multiple armed actors on the ground.

U.S. troops will reportedly leave eastern Syria by April, causing heart palpitations among the usual suspects who have never seen a U.S. intervention they wanted to end.

These failed pundits’ efforts are meant to shame President Trump into reversing his instinct to pull the United States out of Afghanistan.

If the U.S. experience in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria should have told our foreign policy elites anything, it is that Washington can’t resolve distant political problems.

Trump’s decision nips further mission creep in the bud and refocuses the national security bureaucracy on the right priorities.

Sen. Rand Paul has the right idea about entertaining diplomatic talks with Russian officials. His colleagues should take note.

Following 9/11, Congress allowed the president to use troops to combat terrorism. They couldn’t have imagined the consequences.

The Trump administration is a lot closer to conventional foreign policy orthodoxy than many of his political enemies thought or his supporters desired.

Serious observers of world affairs are having a very difficult time explaining what strategic effects the missile attack on a Syrian military airport had.