Since the end of the Cold War, American foreign policy has generally been distinguished by three major schools of thought. The debate over U.S. policy in Syria has brought the divisions between these camps into stark relief.
Despite the violence, depravity and human suffering they share, Syria and Rwanda are very different conflicts. There is sound reasoning for President Obama to proceed carefully and cautiously.
With America and its European partners once again blowing an opening to accept Tehran's nuclear rights and close a nuclear deal, we are likely to see another surge of nuclear expansion in Iran.
As the Obama administration contemplates its next moves in Syria, a decision that is now more pressing with Israel twice bombing Syria in the past week, U.S. credibility hangs in the balance.
President Obama is right to have declared a red line on the Assad regime's use or movement of chemical weapons in Syria. The ban on the use and posses...
Having once misled the public during the year prior to the invasion of Iraq, the media appear to be reprising that role in order to lend an air of inevitability to potential U.S. military intervention in Syria. Exhibit A is the appearance of Christiane Amanpour on The Daily Show.
You have to assume that by continuing to pursue the Benghazi "scandal" story, the GOP is trying to imply that Obama is "soft on terrorism," when in fact he has done more to destroy the al Qaeda terrorist network than the neo-cons who surrounded Bush could have dreamed.
There has been mounting criticism of the Obama administration for setting a line in the sand on Syria -- the movement or use of chemical weapons -- and then apparently failing to act out on its promise. The criticism has come in two varieties.
Perhaps out of logic, straightforwardness and/or a desire to meet the other halfway, President Obama appears to have a tendency to make commitments that later come back to bite him.
Washington's foreign policy should be one of peace. Today the U.S. is without peer. Terrorism is the most serious security threat facing the country, but it is only exacerbated by promiscuous intervention in conflicts not America's own.
Given the recent behavior of the United States when dealing with Libya, Syria, Mali, Iran, and North Korea, what we may be witnessing is a new way of applying Roosevelt's adage more along more humble lines of practice than seen certainly since becoming the world's only superpower.
The top Chinese official of the People's Liberation Army, General Fang Fenghui recently announced that the consequences of a major cyber attack "may be as serious as a nuclear bomb." His remarks are symptomatic of the global uncertainty surrounding the results of a 'major cyber attack.'
Rather than evoking sinister historical parallels, they should draw more attention to round two of a broader strategic realignment that is underway inside the European Union, its implications for the transatlantic relationship and opportunities for U.S. foreign policy.
The more our religion, Islam, is hijacked by extremists, the more some Muslim communities feel as though Islam is under attack from both the East and the West -- from both Muslim and non-Muslim.
If the White House cynically chooses to remain on the sideline and watch the death toll grow, it should at least remove the most dangerous weapons from the equation.
If we are to have any hope of riding the world of weapons of mass destruction, then clearly making good on our commitments to respond strongly to their use is a critical obligation.