Intervention at this sensitive moment, even if it focused on a systematic campaign against ISIS, would probably irreparably fracture the peace-building process by injecting more violence into an already violent situation.
Yet again Washington is only doing what it has done before. Unfortunately, the same policy will yield the same result as before. It is time to try something different.
All Democrats should worry because her major policy and character flaws could leave us with a Republican president this fall. Here's why.
Five years ago, on March 17, 2011, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 (2011) authorizing "regional organizations or arrangeme...
Republican voters face a bad choice. The Donald's shortcomings are manifest. Marco Rubio may be young, well-spoken, and attractive. But his foreign policy judgment is awful. If you want more foolish, costly, and unnecessary wars, vote for Rubio.
Moral hazard is real, and it has significant implications for our policies toward international intervention that must be acknowledged and addressed. First and foremost, threatening intervention if a regime crosses a 'red line' may exacerbate the moral hazard problem as it effectively gives rebels a target to achieve if their aim is international assistance.
Week of 2/15/16 to 2/28/16 Twitter polls have become all the rage and I am continuing to take full advantage of them by boldly engaging the public ...
Libya was supposed to be a different kind of intervention, with a much lighter footprint, more enthusiastic international support, and a realistic hope for a secular democratic regime in the wake of the conflict. The results have been different from what happened in Iraq, but they have not necessarily been any better.
Clinton believes in the U.S. power to do good in the world. Soon, she might be president and she can try again. Hopefully, someone will advise her that just because some guy who speaks unaccented English says the U.S. should go to war, maybe we shouldn't.
Damian Radcliffe, University of Oregon In 2011, the Arab Spring rocked many parts of the Middle East. Regime change in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya sa...
If the United States wants to reduce the limited threat of blowback anti-American terrorism from radical Islamists, it should drastically reduce, not increase, its military interventions in Islamic countries.
Generally presented as some sort of out-of-the-blue challenge to the orthodoxy of our financialized politics, the Sanders vs. Clinton battle actually has deep roots in decades past.
While it may create a small window of opportunity, much like the Libyan uprising did in 2011, it will mean nothing more than the paper it is written on unless we listen to those on the ground.
There has been plenty of discussion about the impact of the persistent low oil price on economic performance, employment, and political stability. Less discussed has been its impact on foreign direct investment (FDI), particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).
The U.S. plans on filling Eastern Europe with thousands of troops along with vehicles and weapons to equip an armored combat brigade. Uncle Sam may be bankrupt, but nothing is too expensive for our pampered European allies, who enjoy greater wealth while spending far less on the military.
What we have today is a West that is retreating militarily and shrinking economically, yet one that still speaks as the lord and master in command of the fates of nations and continents.