Issues / War & Peace
Would President Obama respond to a nuclear attack -- whether from another country or terrorists -- with one of our own?
The siege of the Red Mosque in 2007 was as much a rallying cry for disaffected Pakistanis as Waco was for the American militia movement.
Less than a year ago, General David Petraeus saluted smartly and pledged his loyal support for President Obama's decision to start withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan in July 2011.
Nearly a week after the abrupt departure of Washington's top commander in Afghanistan, U.S. strategy for reversing the flood of bad news that has been recently pouring out of that strife-torn country remains as unclear as ever.
The billions of dollars in cash flowing out of Kabul harken back to the shrink-wrapped $100 bills Paul Bremer sent to Iraq on pallets.
Many hoped that the change in U.S. command in Afghanistan would prompt a discussion not of Petraeus' qualifications, but rather, of the guiding principles and values of the war in Afghanistan.
A renewed engagement with the ICC suggests that the Obama administration is interested in shaping international law while remaining immune to prosecution under the very laws it helps develop.
Israel turns up the saber rattling against Iran a notch and is permitted by the Saudis to stockpile military equipment on its territory.
In the face of sanctions, defectors with nuclear secrets, and a liberalized officer corps, how long can Burma's junta hold out?
Why not hold Gen. Petraeus's performance in Afghanistan to the standards of his seminal work on counterinsurgency, Field Manual 3-24?