Readers -- and taxpayers -- should take these corporate connections into account when assessing the objectivity of pro-bomber pieces like the Mitchell Institute report. Of course, even interested parties can be right some of the time. But that is not the case with respect to the new bomber.
America is not at risk from North Korea or even the other Asian powers Snyder cites. Washington does not need the alliance with Seoul to deter Pyongyang. Like most of America's alliances, the U.S.-ROK treaty is entirely one-sided.
Restricting the Pentagon to its core missions, rooting out waste in the department, and using force as a tool of last resort is an approach that conservatives and liberals alike should be able to support. Rand Paul deserves credit for putting this issue on the agenda.
The relationship between sporting events and our armed services always seemed firmly based on pure patriotism. Now, thanks to a Congressional report, we find out that the Pentagon paid sports teams $6.8 million for these various "patriotic events" that honored soldiers and veterans.
Those of us who have campaigned for a radical reduction of the U.S. military footprint overseas have spent so much time detailing our objections to the status quo that we don't have much time left over to consider what would happen if we succeed.
This is a fight about what happens in the future, not the present. By implying otherwise, the president's opponents are playing politics with defense, the precise thing they have (wrongly) charged the administration with doing.
Washington should stop using the Pentagon as a global welfare agency. The U.S. government at least should charge for its defense services, as Donald Trump has suggested. This is a second best option. But America shouldn't be defending its rich friends for free.
As expected, Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate revolved primarily around domestic issues. But there were a few exchanges - such as those on Syria, Libya and Iraq - that helped clarify where the candidates stand on key foreign policy issues.
Hopefully Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate will cast a spotlight on the differences among the candidates and delve into substantive issues that have not been adequately addressed in the campaign to date.
It's a given that to be a Republican candidate you have to bash President Obama as being weak on defense. But as evidenced in Wednesday's debate, while a few of the candidates depart from the party's most heated foreign policy rhetoric, none of them have come up with a coherent alternative.