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.
The United States should return to its traditional foreign policy, established by the nation's founders and followed for most of the nation's history, of restraint overseas. Rand and Ron Paul get it. Rick Perry should too.
Today, the U.S. looks less like a functioning and effective empire than an imperial basket case, unable to bring its massive power to bear effectively from Germany to Syria, Iraq to Afghanistan, Libya to the South China Sea, the Crimea to Africa.
I got the chance to be in an inspiring place where you can actually breathe knowledge and engagement for social-economic and human causes, namely poverty eradication and food access ( or accessibility) to all.
It is past time for the United States to agree to a ban on the use of these indiscriminate weapons and to accede to the Ottawa Convention. The U.S. statement does not advance that outcome.
Thi Quang Lam, a former general in the South Vietnamese army talks about issues related to contemporary Vietnam and its growing unrest, spurred in large part by China's aggression and Hanoi's muted response.
On this Fourth of July weekend, as the world's greatest democracy celebrates its independence, it has an opportunity to right that wrong by reversing course and supporting the Iraqi Kurds in their road to independence.
We prove to be good tacticians but not strategists, shooters but not aimers, and, above all, loud talkers but poor listeners. The broadside was our answer everywhere.