Americans born 17 years ago can now enlist to fight in a war that began before they were born. It’s time to end the Afghanistan war.
The old willingness to ‘pay any price, bear any burden’ is waning. There is no reason we should subsidize others’ luxuries, let alone when we have so many problems at home.
Why are so many in Washington—even supposed conservatives—so eager to defend our powerful and unelected intelligence agencies?
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.
National security consultant David Reaboi discusses what’s happening in the Middle East and how he thinks the Trump Administration will respond to it.
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.
John Bolton not only shares the president’s views on many foreign policy issues, he has decades of experience in government, politics, and American leadership.
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.
President Trump’s Afghanistan plan is, above all, a pledge to double down on the bipartisan failures of the last decade and half, making changes only for the worse.
The idea that Russia orchestrated the Trump administration’s decision to end the CIA’s funding of jihadists is totally corrupt and offensive.
The GOP has struggled to define its foreign policy views, waffling between neoconservatism and anti-interventionism. But we need a third way.
His comments since Inauguration Day have disintegrated into a pettiness unbefitting a man of Bill Kristol’s intellectual heft and influence.
When asked if America’s foreign policy since 9/11 has made us more or less safe, a non-dangling-chad majority (51 percent) said ‘less safe.’
Liberal interventionism and neoconservatism offer us the same militaristic approaches. It’s time for a new, more thoughtful approach to our foreign policy.
Sean Hannity and Bret Stephens can duke it out all they want over nativism or neoconservatism in foreign policy, but their world will soon be over.
Nearly all of the U.S foreign policy establishment is now aligned with the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party. That’s not surprising.
Donald Trump’s foreign policy program reminds us that many people are enthusiastic about contradictory nonsense when it seems to break through a persistent impasse.
People who love freedom in its various forms still need to work together to fight for it in the political arena. So we should start considering ways a new coalition can avoid old mistakes.
The great American intellectual and conservative heavyweight has died. Here’s a brief glimpse of Harry Jaffa’s legacy.
A Tea Party president’s foreign policy would markedly differ from that of a Progressive, Libertarian, or establishment candidate.
- New York Times Hid Multiple Key Facts In Kavanaugh Yearbook HitA New York Times article scrutinizing inside jokes in tcontinue reading >
- The Smearing Of Brett Kavanaugh Is Truly EvilThis media-enabled Democratic smear campaign simply cancontinue reading >
- 10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment LawyerIt’s not nice or politically correct to say, but peopcontinue reading >