We have it on highest authority: the recent killing of Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour by a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan marks "an important milestone." But a question remains: A milestone toward what exactly?
On the final Memorial Day weekend of the Obama administration, the soon to be astonishingly young ex-Commander-in-Chief has some recent successes to savor on the security front.
During the 1960s and early 1970s, U.S. leaders somehow thought the backwater country of Vietnam was strategic and became embroiled in a tar pit. The same is true today in the Middle East.
Preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb has been a key goal of Ploughshares Fund and many other security experts for decades. To suggest otherwise -- as David Samuels did -- is absurd.
If the Democrats decide to run Joe Biden, it will be like a breath of fresh air in a very toxic campaign. They'll have a united party, Trump will be defeated and the world and we will be a much better place. I'm in with Biden.
Did you know that in the nine months leading to the criminal war of aggression against Iraq, at least 300 retired, high-level officials spoke out against the looming invasion? But, shockingly, these respected individuals were ignored by the war-drum pounding White House, a mass media mad with hysteria, and an abdicating Congress.
A commencement speech provides no space for direct, democratic engagement. The speaker arrives, receives an honorary degree, delivers their remarks, and leaves. There is no room for free speech since the event is one-directional.
Perhaps General David Petraeus's all-time sharpest comment came in the earliest days of Iraq War 2.0. "Tell me how this ends," he said, referring to the invasion. That question should be asked daily in Washington. America's wars are too easily forgotten.
In a Washington that seems incapable of doing anything but worshiping at the temple of the U.S. military, global policymaking has become a remarkably mindless military-first process of repetition.
As I and others have noted, Clinton supporters and Democrat loyalists should not be surprised if their party loses to Trump in November, especially when they still have a chance to nominate a perfectly good "outsider" candidate like Sanders.
While Rhodes raises largely valuable points about the grave deficiencies of the current news media and long-term foreign policy establishment, what he doesn't address is the lack of preparedness on the part of the administration in dealing with a chaotic world it may be making even more chaotic.
Careful studies of al-Qaeda and ISIS have shown that the United States and its allies are following their game plan with some precision. Their goal is to "draw the West as deeply and actively as possible into the quagmire."
Bernie is the strongest candidate. Nevertheless, Hillary supporters refuse to accept this data. They are dead certain that Bernie would lose because America will never elect a socialist. They are sure (maybe a less so) that Hillary is the battle-tested warrior who will bring Trump to his knees.
Iraq is also home to the living - millions of people, families, and hopes and dreams. During my trip, I was fortunate to encounter a young man who also defies characterization. He has forever changed my perspective on Iraq.
When you are president, you often don't get a second chance. Fatal decisions send young Americans to war and often disastrously change the course of world events.
It is not my intention, for example, to pass any overall judgment of Hillary's hawkishness. That would require more detailed knowledge than I possess. But I do have a couple of observations to offer that, in my view, should lessen the weight of evidence for this characterization of Hillary as a superhawk.