In his latest book, A Passion for Leadership: Lessons on Change and Reform from Fifty Years of Public Service, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates looks back on five decades of leadership experience.
Look how the political discourse of the country has shifted following recent terrorist attacks and the one-upmanship xenophobia of the Republican presidential primary. Who is confident that whoever wins the Republican primary would not try to lead the country into a ground war in Syria?
Sanders is correct to maintain that economic inequality is important. However his inability to address the issue in a meaningful way, given the opportunity, and stick to prewritten talking points show a lack of versatility and attention to foreign policy that we desperately need in the next president.
It would be so simple, for example, for the president to get network time to deliver a national address to the American people, perhaps with a map in the background, to explain what his Administration is doing in fighting ISIS.
Obama's China syndrome is that he seeks both to engage China and to contain China. Both are appropriate and arguably quite necessary goals for American statecraft. But they presuppose a state of creative tension between the established superpower and would-be superpower.
With its many millions of youth aspiring to such a forward thinking global citizenship, the potential of Scouting in today's rapidly changing world landscape cannot be underestimated, and should be maximized.
Robert Gates is not to blame that the ban on homosexual adult leaders was not addressed years sooner, but he must answer for the current plan that seeks to devolve anti-LGBT discrimination to all of those faith-based chartered organizations that might prefer to exclude LGBT parents. This is wrong and divisive.
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.
Chinese foreign policy displayed imagination, strategic vision and the political coherence to vastly enhance its regional dominance and global influence. While U.S. foreign policy displayed it has little to offer besides its vast military power.
With a clearer perception of the rightful concerns as promulgated in both the American and Russian experience given their proper weight, a more rational and constructive dialogue could emerge.
Thursday marks the start of RIMPAC 2014, the largest naval exercise in the world. For the first time, China is among the participants in this U.S.-organized exercise.
The city blocks of Washington, DC are chock-full of young professionals from all over the world: people in their early 20's to early 30's, often livin...
Aside from the intriguing clues to Robert Gates' probable role in constructing a false picture of the Iranian nuclear danger, Porter's book is essential reading for all Americans wary of manufactured paths to war that have become a major theme in U.S. foreign relations after World War II.
Generating a General Assembly resolution to support humanitarian relief and encouraging states to pursue humanitarian remedies at least isolates Putin and Assad from the will of the world and yields at least broad moral authority to act.
The U.S. military has been rocked by a series of scandals involving cheating, stealing, and corruption. The list of improprieties seems to get longer every day.
So what explains Obama's detachment or even apathy towards the instability and violence engulfing the region? And why is the second term president so restrained in the absence of reelection worries?