Ten years after 9/11, for the first time, a plurality of Americans recognizes that US policy in the Middle East played a major role in the attacks. It was not, as George W. Bush famously put it, simply because, "They hate our freedom."
In times of war, U.S. presidents have often talked about yearning for peace. But the last decade has brought a gradual shift in the rhetorical zeitgeist while a tacit assumption has taken hold -- war must go on, one way or another.
In light on the ongoing debate around military commissions for terrorist suspects and the disposition of the Gitmo holding facility, a new book will interest anyone concerned with national security policy.
I can't help but wonder why folks are so afraid to call the mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona an act of terrorism. The fear of the "T" word seems almost palpable in describing the gruesome events that took place this past Saturday.
What should be increasingly clear is that Republican members of the incoming Congress are looking for terrorism in ever more startling places. It seems that, for them, all domestic issues are potentially terrorist issues.
Last spring, a young girl tried to murder a member of parliament. Her inspiration? A man that is to Islam what Terry Jones is to Christianity. It's a valuable lesson about how we can prevent radical Islamic violence.
Though victims acknowledged that drones often kill militants, they decried the strikes for the harm they cause to civilians and claimed that they are ineffective at combating militancy in the long-run.
We wonder why no one except our government considers the U.S. to be "honest brokers" between Israelis and Palestinians. But it's no wonder at all. Honest brokers would condemn all killings of innocent people.
While nobody would argue that the government shouldn't take all necessary and justifiable steps to prevent terrorism, what rational person would argue that turning extremists away from violence runs contrary to that goal?