Gabbard threatens the status quo and the never-ending war mentality that enriches the coffers of powerful interests. That’s exactly why she should be heard.
Neocons have lost the GOP base due to their mishandling of the United States’ foreign wars, and Trump’s presidency is only just the beginning of a necessary shift.
The United States cannot save the world by opening our borders. Its ills are too great and numerous.
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.
There’s a very strong case to be made that in the long-term, Central America, for all its problems, is a lot safer and more stable because of U.S. foreign policy in the 1980s.
American men and women are still being sent to far-off lands, under-trained and under-equipped, to fight in conflicts that have little congressional oversight and little payoff for U.S. strategy.
By a 68-23 margin, the Senate decided we haven’t spilled enough blood, broken enough soldiers, or spent enough money on Afghanistan.
These failed pundits’ efforts are meant to shame President Trump into reversing his instinct to pull the United States out of Afghanistan.
Venezuela’s situation is terrible, and Nicolas Maduro’s stronghold might grow less stable over the course of the month. We still shouldn’t intervene.
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.
James Mattis’s departure highlights the broader legitimation crisis that results from American foreign policy being run without democratic accountability and against popular opinion.
Where should one intervene? What constitutes a win? Do we have what it takes to finish it permanently?
Trump’s decision nips further mission creep in the bud and refocuses the national security bureaucracy on the right priorities.
The burden of proof should not be with those who seek to return American troops home after the successful vanquishing of a foe, but on those who seek to continue a conflict with no timeline or clear strategy.
We spend gobs of money on our military, so what do we get in return? A lot of foreign intervention that has little clear benefit to Americans.
Yesterday, President Trump resisted public pressure and declined to significantly reorient American foreign policy in light of Saudi Arabia’s brutal killing of its political opponent Jamal Khashoggi.
While war is sometimes necessary, World War I warns us not to reduce complex historical lessons into facile axioms, such as the need to ‘resist aggression.’
- Witnesses Defended Kavanaugh. NYT Authors Falsely Claimed They Were SilentA new Atlantic-published, adapted excerpt of the book acontinue reading >
- New York Times Reporters Also Omitted Key Kavanaugh Detail In NPR InterviewIt's not that the reporters mentioned the most importancontinue reading >
- New Book: Christine Blasey Ford’s Friend Leland Keyser Doesn’t Believe Her"It just didn't make any sense," lifelong friend Lelandcontinue reading >