Despite their relative lack of formal political and economic authority, women are vital to conflict resolution and sustainable peace building worldwide.
Looking at the political shards left over from Tuesday's election, shadowed so heavily by President Barack Obama's sharp decline from his strong re-election just two years ago, we see two starkly different realities for Democrats in the nation's largest state and the nation as a whole.
When politics has gone bankrupt and finds its extension in fratricidal war, there is only one way forward, which is to make everyone understand that no one can win alone and that salvation, and suicide alike, can only be collective.
How did a simple weekend trip become a veritable affair of state? Having come to meet with leaders of various Libyan factions at the Hôtel La Résidence, a philosopher found himself at the center of a maelstrom in which rumor and spite eclipsed truth and diplomacy.
The United Nations' own commitment to the principles of 1325 must also be scrutinised and called into question. Women have been all but absent from the ongoing peace efforts in Syria.
What makes one country more important than another? That's a crucial question to ask when it comes to Libya. The U.S. is now prioritizing the fight against ISIS through airstrikes over Iraq and Syria. But what about the country we were so focused on three years ago?
The recent debate over falling oil prices has become an over simplified economic question of supply and demand, ignoring other interrelated economic theories.
Remarkably, Goldman Sachs, one of the richest, most powerful, politically connected (aka Government Sachs) too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks, has demonstrated a Teflon-like ability to bounce back from egregious misdeeds, if not outright illegal conduct, and horrible publicity.
If oil prices stay below $90 per barrel for any length of time, we will witness massive fiscal squeezes and regime changes in one or more of the following countries: Iran, Bahrain, Ecuador, Venezuela, Algeria, Nigeria, Iraq, or Libya. It will be a movie we have seen before.
Nearly two months after President Obama first vowed to eradicate the Islamic State terrorist group in its Levantine stronghold, this internationally-diagnosed cancer is spreading in North Africa. As the West struggles to roll back three years of an errant hands-off policy in Syria and Iraq, no leader has the luxury to ignore this threat without consequence.
The counter-revolutionary Gulf strategy has opened a window on potential differences not only between Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain on the one hand and Qatar on the other but also within the conservative counter-revolutionary camp itself.
As the United States ramps up its 'no boots on the ground' war against jihadists in Iraq and Syria, the stream of threats emanating from the region appear to grow ever wider and deeper.
By any yardstick, the conflicts of the Middle East are not being well managed. Three states have failed - Iraq, Syria and Libya - two of these as a consequence of Western intervention. Other states like Yemen are tottering.
Obama said a week ago he did not have a strategy to combat ISIS, and that now he does. He was right the first time.
In times past, talk of "humanitarian intervention" brought to mind images of Red Cross trucks and nurses coming to the scene of a natural disaster to tend the afflicted.
If the past is any indication of what could result out of this "mission," the U.S., the nation leading the way with words, guns and treasure, is likely to fail simply because every time it has gone there it has made things worse.