It is clear that today's persistent terrorist organizations are manipulating marketing ideas like consistency, uniqueness and credibility far more effectively than we are undermining them. Often, we inadvertently help them, without realizing how they are succeeding.
COPENHAGEN - An increased E.U. naval presence off Libya, creating safer passage for migrants and refugees and combating smuggling of weapons and oil, could be a possible course of action. But a military intervention in Libya at this point is playing with fire.
A de facto peacenik who was horrified by the prospect of needless war, Reagan likely would have been appalled by the aggressive posturing of most of the Republicans currently seeking the White House.
ISIS successes have exceeded the expectations of virtually everyone, but this pronouncement had a ring of hubris to it. How in the world could they successfully attack Rome? Events in Libya and southern Europe are beginning to show how such an event could happen.
War is not just another policy option. It means death and destruction. It wrecks societies. It creates harms which cannot be undone. It is the most serious action that government can take. It should be a last resort, reserved for the most important interests and most moral causes. None of these is at stake in the case of Iran. Americans demanding that Washington attack Iran demonstrate that Lord Acton's axiom, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely," applies even to the United States. The mere fact that America is able to war against every nation on the planet does not justify it doing so. Washington should officially take the military option off of the table when dealing with Iran.
"Europe is declaring war on smugglers" the EU's top migration official said last month. As the Mediterranean fills with boats and the bodies of migrants from Africa and the Arab world, it is inopportune language like this underlines how grave a situation we find ourselves in and how far away a humane solution seems.
AMMAN -- Whatever happens in Jordan and nearby Arab countries, one thing is clear: it is impossible to obliterate a movement that has popular support.
By beating a dead horse on Benghazi, which obviously has had "no there there" for a long time, Republicans have been wasting valuable time that they could have been using to critique Hillary's larger policy blunders.
Europe is now on the verge of making the cruel decisions the United States made in Haiti and in Mexico. Wealthy northern countries must decide if they want to change the way of life they have created over centuries and accept tens of millions of people fleeing poverty and corruption.
The Obama administration's decision to negotiate with Tehran triggered near hysteria among U.S. politicians and pundits who advocate perpetual war in the Middle East.
Europe wept crocodile tears over the mass grave that the Mediterranean has become. Few have shown any sign that they will treat the mass drownings as what they are: a humanitarian disaster.
If America ends up at war, it almost certainly will be on behalf of one ally or another. Washington collects allies like most people collect Facebook "friends." The vast majority of U.S. allies are security liabilities, tripwires for conflict and war. Alliances should be based on interest, not charity.
It's often said that you can't get economists to agree on anything. Well, oil economists certainly can't agree on future prices, with commentators suggesting anything from $20 to $200. Seldom has there been such a discrepancy in forecasting, though the median forecasts seem to be somewhere between $60 and $70.
From one end of the globe to the other, "have-nots" are looking with envy at the lives of the "haves." This is not about ideology or politics. They are not revolutionaries looking to overturn the old order or seeking payback for the legacy of colonial imperialism, rather they are looking to join it and benefit from its bounty.
As commander-in-chief, there's no reason to believe Hillary would be any less a hawk than she was as the senator who backed George W. Bush's war in Iraq, or the Secretary of State who encouraged Barack Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan.
As in all matters of war and peace, the buck stops at the president's desk: it wasn't Hillary, but Barack Obama who ultimately gave the orders.