Trump’s decision nips further mission creep in the bud and refocuses the national security bureaucracy on the right priorities.
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.
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.
President Trump wanted to declare victory over ISIS in Syria and go home. Well, that’s the trick, isn’t it? It turns out ‘win and go home’ rarely works.
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.
Can one support freedom and security for both majorities and minorities? This is the biggest question looming over U.S. policy in the Middle East, particularly for our involvement in Syria.
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?
Our soft-spoken, poised ambassador to the United Nations has emerged as the star of the Trump administration, earning new admirers for her performance on the international stage.
Chemical weapons attacks by the Assad regime in Syria have amplified calls for military intervention there. We need some key questions answered first.
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.
As we close out the year and prepare for the incoming Trump administration, here are the top ten foreign policy developments of 2016 that will set the scene for 2017.
A conservative approach toward the Middle East today should not be a choice between the two extremes of isolationism or global policing.
- Why John Roberts’ Citizenship Decision Is Legally And Politically CorruptSince when is the Supreme Court in the business of goincontinue reading >
- Why Scarlett Johansson Is Mostly Right About Identity-Blind CastingThe 'Avengers' star is generally right that actors can continue reading >
- Women From All 50 States Gather In D.C. To Advocate For Gun RightsThe DC Project brings students, mom, competitive shootecontinue reading >