Trump’s decision nips further mission creep in the bud and refocuses the national security bureaucracy on the right priorities.
The Trump administration’s move to cut off aid to Syria is in America’s best interests, and it’s good for the Syrian people too.
Americans are sick of endless wars, and a bipartisan consensus of ordinary Americans yearns for more realism, restraint, and plain common sense in U.S. foreign policy.
The paralyzing and costly zigzags of American policy over the last couple of decades have opened doors for rivals to benefit at its expense. Chief among these is China.
No matter how charming Macron is during his visit to Washington, President Trump should avoid being suckered into a longer and deeper involvement in Syria.
‘The others, gasping, stumbling, with face contorted, hands wildly gesticulating, and uttering horse cries of pain, fled madly through the villages and farms …’
By declaring ‘mission accomplished’ in Syria after a single night, President Trump is avoiding the kind of sustained strategy that actually produces results.
The Trump administration likely has a strategy in mind to change the way U.S. enemies have gotten used to thinking after eight years of President Obama.
Syria in 2018 is not Iraq in 2003 and a response to Bashar Al-Assad’s chemical weapons is not deposing Saddam Hussein.
Upping the ante in Syria would be politically disastrous for the president, and more important, it would damage America’s national security. Here’s why.
The questions people should really be asking are why Syria joined the Paris agreement and why it chose to do so now, two years after the agreement was first adopted.
The idea that Russia orchestrated the Trump administration’s decision to end the CIA’s funding of jihadists is totally corrupt and offensive.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Syrian ceasefire to culminate in some sort of peaceful resolution, or even last long. We’ve been down this road before, folks.
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.
Both President Trump and the United Nations appear unlikely to take any significant steps toward ending Bashar al Assad’s reign of terror.
The U.S. has spent billions in training and support for Syrian rebels—the same rebels now willing to work with the terrorists responsible for 9/11.
The United Nations operates on a failed theory of diplomacy that gives your opponent the benefit of the doubt that he wants the same thing as you. Another word for it is naïveté.
Christians in Syria face religious persecution and even genocide. How should we respond to their plight? One refugee gives a nuanced perspective.
- Media Corruption On Perfect Display In One Washington Post ParagraphEvery single assertion of this paragraph isn't just wrocontinue reading >
- Joe Rogan Just Skewered Andrew Yang’s Plan To Eliminate Meat-EatingAt a climate change forum hosted by MSNBC, Andrew Yang continue reading >
- The Tragedy Of Greta ThunbergSixteen-year-old Swedish climate change activist Greta continue reading >