My question then and now is the same: How will the US react if the Kurds decide their best option is to declare independence and then request ongoing American financial and military support?
Venture even further, and you'll quickly find that the image of the American tourist is reflective of how the world at large views Americans: self-entitled, oblivious to matters outside of the U.S., with little desire to learn of different cultures or languages.
Our celebrity culture has turned us all into armchair therapists who put even our president on the couch to analyze his personality flaws. But when the label of "detached" acquires a political spin, it's no longer just nonsense. It becomes dangerous.
The bottom line is this: just because we can obtain a piece of information, or listen into a conversation, doesn't mean we should. This is especially true when it comes to our nation's most important allies, like Germany.
President Obama can -- and must -- fix the policy of turning women away in the extreme cases of life-endangering pregnancies or those resulting from rape. Until Congress does the right thing and overturns the harmful law in its entirety, he can take a first step to ensure that U.S. programs are part of the solution, not the problem.
A recent tactical shift in Ayatollah Khamenei's policies indicate that he has increasingly become less powerful or "Supreme" as the mainstream media reveals or as his title indicates.
The US has unnecessarily overthrown in regimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya that have led to internal civil wars and the spread armed Islamism into surrounding areas. Unbelievably, some members of the foreign policy elite want the U.S. to get more heavily involved in other civil wars.
When I was young, a mantra among progressives was that America had to stop operating as global policeman. Vietnam was the signal episode of arrogant and ultimately self-defeating American overreach. But there were plenty of other cases of the U.S. government doing the bidding of oil companies and banana barons, and blithely overthrowing left-democratic governments as well as outright communists (or driving nationalist reformers into the arms of communists.)
To hear the State Department tell it, the fact that our Secretary of State was forced to go through a metal detector before being allowed to meet with Egypt's president does not matter very much. But with all due respect, it does matter.
Mr. President, for too long your approach to foreign policy has been reactive, not proactive. It feels like we're always playing catch-up. Now is the time to tell us what it is you want us to do. What are our goals? What is most important to us? And how are we going to get there?
As we dig into our vocabularies to express our outrage, sadness, and fear, we must bear in mind the consequences of how we conduct our dialogue.
Preaching democratic values while engaging in supporting undemocratic and repressive regimes has never enhanced American credibility, and it has rarely been a successful security tactic in the long term.
It's true: we don't have a rough-rider President à la Theodore Roosevelt. It's also true that we do have a President who does special operations (Osama bin Laden), unlike his hapless predecessor, Jimmy Carter (Desert One).
Will BRICS (read mainly Chinese) financing for developing world infrastructure require environmental conditions on potential projects?
Why was this a mistake? The reason is that it is reductive to the point of inaccuracy and has therefore prevented the Israeli security establishment and the rest of the world from understanding what Hamas wants and how to engage it on proper terms.
It's taken a long time for Germany and Japan to recover from the Second World War. After enduring the indignity of military occupation, they regained sovereignty only by guaranteeing against future threats to peace. Germany's new constitution only authorized military force in self-defense or in collaboration with collective security agreements. Japan's Article Nine went further, "forever renounc[ing] ... the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes." But this post-war settlement is unraveling before our eyes. The Obama administration must learn to distinguish the urgent from the truly fundamental. Unless it rethinks our traditional post-war partnerships, it risks an authoritarian Japan and a profoundly alienated Germany -- destroying one of the greatest legacies of the twentieth century.