The escalating bloodbath in Iraq has triggered renewed debate on how muscular America's foreign policy should be. This week, I speak with combat veteran and historian Andrew Bacevich about the events unfolding in Iraq and what they say about America's role in the world.
The premise of the complaint that we don't normally have to endure politicization of our major national sporting events is simply false. Examples abound, but the most unrelenting one is the steady diet sports fans have been fed of nearly compulsory worshipfulness of our armed forces.
There are honorable deaths, there may be necessary wars. But this was neither honorable nor necessary. Does telling the truth blame the soldiers? It shouldn't, but it certainly should make the powerful less comfortable.
2010 has seen a re-assertion of bipartisan consensus on American militarism, making the issue virtually invisible in this campaign despite the fact that it's never been more urgent for us to face squarely its scope and consequences.
Marty Peretz apologized for saying he wasn't sure whether Muslims deserve the same rights as other Americans, but refused to apologize for having said that "Muslim life is cheap, especially for Muslims."
A key task for ending the war - and preventing future wars, such as a future war with Iran for which the political groundwork is now being laid - is breaking the Republican political monolith in support of war.
We haven't seen a president willing to break with his predecessor by prioritizing regional diplomacy and humanitarian aid above military escalation. Here's why Obama gets a 'D' for his first 100 days in Afghanistan.