If Trump is serious about his call to change course on military intervention, he should actually bring troops home — and if he’s concerned about pushback, Yemen is the perfect place to start.
The United States’ top priority should be leaving Afghanistan, not securing a deal that would mostly be a public relations win.
The president should appoint a new national security advisor who shares his instincts: to get out of quagmires, to seek deals to reduce tensions, and to get our allies to take defense seriously.
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.
Donald Trump remains the first president in 25 years to not have started a new war. As the U.S. nears a deal, he should take this opportunity to bring American troops home.
Calls from hawks like John Bolton and others in the military for more intervention are bad for Trump’s reelection chances and even worse for the United States.
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.
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.
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.
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.’
In order to understand what guidance natural law gives us about war and peace in our time, it is first necessary to have some understanding of what ‘natural law’ is.
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.
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.
To Americans tired of military campaigns to social engineer governments in distant lands, Donald Trump suggested he might embrace a less belligerent foreign policy. That’s not happening.
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.
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.
- How A Hardworking Iowa Dad Exposed A Major Democrat Handicap In 2020In about 30 seconds, one man in Iowa exposed a major wecontinue reading >
- 6 Democratic Senators To Watch In Impeachment TrialThe media keep suggesting it's Republicans who might swcontinue reading >
- Grassley Letter Asks Whether Taxpayers Paid Russian Agent To Help Start The Collusion HoaxDid Stefan Halper attempt to recruit Trump campaign offcontinue reading >