If journalism was once considered the first rough draft of history, now, when it comes to American military policy at least, it's often the first rough pass at writing a script for "The Daily Show."
There is, of course, a certain logic to imagining that the increasing global sweep of these deployments is a sign of success. After all, why would you expand your operations into ever-more nations if they weren't successful?
This is a radically new concept in political culture; power in a country is no longer solely derived from the king, the dictator, the elites, the party or even the direct electoral consent of the governed, but from the economic well being of the governed.
There is a fundamental disconnect between the substance and the symbolism of President Obama's foreign policy. This is not a case of saying one thing and doing another. In the case of the Obama administration it is a case of saying one thing but delivering it in a style and with imagery that belies its authenticity.
A new poll conducted by a bipartisan research team and released today by the Better World Campaign finds that registered voters favor a foreign policy approach that embraces a partnership model.
US presidential candidates have been invited to participate in the first-ever US Presidential Candidates' Forum held abroad, focusing on foreign and defense policy issues.
Sometimes I imagine the last 14 years of American war policy in the Greater Middle East as a set of dismal Mad Libs. An example might be: The United States has spent [your choice of multiple billions of dollars] building up [fill in name of Greater Middle Eastern country]'s army.
I strongly believe I can present accurate responses about how people in the world actually think about the country that we have heard is the greatest country on Earth, and not only quick shallow statements because it's the right thing to say.
If the first debate between the Democratic presidential candidates revealed anything about Senator Bernie Sanders, it was his glaring lack of command of foreign policy issues. His continual retreat to a lone talking point about his vote against the Iraq War is deeply problematic.
Our most powerful democracy-promoting tool has been our example, but at a time when Washington is in gridlock, putting our house in order is a prerequisite to effectively promoting democracy abroad.
Given the ultimate power of a president -- especially one finishing up his second term in office and hardly beholden to a Republican Congress -- to say "no," Obama's explanation for the dismal failure of part of this country's war policy is, in its admission of weakness, possibly unique in the annals of the modern White House.
Recent developments confirm a major shift in the balance of power in the Middle East. It appears to me that Russia is dictating the pace of events, raising the question of whether Syria is becoming a proxy war between the United States and Russia.
If the US truly desires the positive bilateral relationship with the government and people of Pakistan to which it so often alludes, it must begin to treat the victims of its policies in the region with greater fairness, dignity and respect.
Because foreign crises and the American response to them, such as the prolonged wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, can periodically cost many lives and trillions of dollars, prudence demands that American citizens pay more attention to foreign policy when casting their votes.
The United States now finds itself in a difficult position in Syria. American supported rebels are coming under direct attack by Russian military forces. If the U.S. challenges Russian planes it risks a potential escalation and a military incident between American and Russian forces.
Washington, for all of its assurances that it has blocked every path to a nuclear Iran, has done little to block the pathway to a devastating regional conflict.