The Pentagon doesn’t need more appropriations of taxpayer money—it needs a foreign policy leadership willing to recognize that nearly two decades of counterinsurgency, regime change campaigns, and meandering wars have degraded the U.S. military and put extreme pressure on the U.S. Treasury.
The U.S. foreign policy establishment must undergo a reassessment of Washington’s relationships with both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, viewing them less as the antidote for the region’s systemic security problems and more as the transactional arrangements they have been for decades.
The United States has remained the major military power and leader within NATO by an enormous margin. As a result, all European NATO armies, not just the Germans, have shortchanged common defense by free riding on American power. This defense welfare, funded by the American taxpayer, serves no one’s interests.
In this case, the wiser course is condemnation of Moscow’s malfeasance, diplomatic engagement if appropriate, and care to avoid exacerbating conflict with another nuclear state.
The U.S. would be able to pass on much of the cost of protecting Europe—in both blood and treasure—to Europeans themselves, who are already geopolitically situated to stand up for Western interests, in tandem with their American allies, in relation to Russia and non-state threats from Africa and the Middle East.
For those on either side of the aisle interested in passing meaningful policy into law, there are areas where President Trump and Congressional Democrats could work together—national security and foreign policy.
Improved relations between the Koreas make a military conflagration far less likely, and thus serve U.S. national security interests in East Asia. Ultimately for the United States, it is peace on the Korean Peninsula that truly matters.
American leaders must understand how cycles of escalation happen and how to break them before they get out of hand. To do otherwise would be a disservice to everyone who has and will serve. Veterans Day and the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I should be a time to remember that.
Washington must not get involved in another war and reconstruction effort that it cannot handle. Instead, America should offer direct aid, coordination an international humanitarian response, and assist Venezuela's neighbors in housing and caring for those who have fled. Washington should also continue to put financial and diplomatic pressure on Mauro. But nothing more.
It is not in U.S. security interests to maintain an unnecessarily provocative military stance against China in which miscalculation or mistake could result in a military clash. Such an outcome could be catastrophic for American security and economic prosperity.
We are long past the point in which U.S. involvement in Yemen—involvement that Congress has not expressly authorized—is making the prospects of a political resolution more difficult to envision. American military and logistical assistance to the Saudi coalition is morally strategically bankrupt. The U.S. can no longer squander it’s good name on a war in which all of the belligerents are engaging in ruthless conduct.
America does not need to try and be the referee of the Middle East and force sides to the negotiating table in the Yemen civil war. The best thing we can do for peace is to immediately withdraw our military support and encourage the sides to find a political solution.
Washington should work with Russia when we can and challenge Russia when we must. Promoting personal exchanges between lawmakers in Washington and Moscow—as Sen. Paul proposes—seems like a small, but potentially worthwhile step in the right direction.
The Khashoggi affair and Riyadh’s floundering cover up of the murder demonstrates why putting all of America’s chips in the Saudi pot is dangerous. While the U.S. should always look for opportunities to engage the Saudis on mutual problems, Washington should no longer confuse Saudi Arabia’s interests with its own.
The Middle East is an epicenter of violence. It will only be able to turn itself around when the region’s politicians have the incentive, determination, and leadership to take ownership of the crises currently inflicting their neighborhood. The U.S. military should not be put in the position of doing it for them, nor should the American people be on the hook for throwing their hard-earned taxpayer dollars towards a project that will inevitably fail.
If the Trump administration will not set about substantially changing that relationship (and recent history suggests it will not), Congress must act. Putting an end to arms sales is the first step, and it already has bipartisan support in the Senate. Washington’s habit of turning a blind eye to Saudi malfeasance has never been principled or prudent. The crisis in Yemen and the apparent murder of Jamal Khashoggi make it inexcusable.
The raison d’etre for creating the UN following World War II was to have a forum for nations to bring concerns and openly communicate in an attempt to prevent future violence. This is still a viable goal in the 21st century, but for the U.S. must be within the context of our interests and what we believe is achievable. To do that, President Trump must nominate an ambassador who has as much experience and passion for our governing principles as they do with international affairs, and will use our membership in the UN to advance our nation’s economic and security goals.
The killing of a journalist is an unconscionable act, especially when the assailant is a supposed U.S. friend. U.S.-Saudi ties, however, were never founded upon friendship, shared values, a mutual sense of ethics, or a common history—they were founded upon pragmatism and realpolitik. If the pragmatism is wearing off, or the other party is acting counter to U.S. interests, Washington should reassess the assumptions underlying the partnership.
The United States does not need to meddle in every part of the world that faces a lack of security, especially if we can count on our friends. Moreover by getting involved in local fights against radicals—most of which can be dealt with by regional powers—we often go looking for trouble. American interests are better served by a more hands-off approach to Niger and the Sahel.
The Saudi government has taken maximum advantage of America’s appetite for crude oil and a desire for a long-term counterterrorism partner in order to press its own regional agenda. This agenda is centered on the Saudi monarchy’s existential rivalry with Iran and its absolutist quest for hegemony. The United States, despite having no national security interest in the sectarian fault-lines of the Middle East, has frequently chosen to wade into Arab conflicts on Saudi Arabia’s side. Why U.S. officials continue to follow Riyadh’s lead is a mystery with no simple explanation.
A failure to shift the burden to those who should bear it would suck even more U.S. attention and resources into a part of the world that has seen too much over the last decade and a half. Time for Washington to focus more on our middle class than the Middle East.
It's well past time to recognize that the threat in Afghanistan doesn’t warrant a continued U.S. military presence and the associated costs—which are not inconsequential.
17 years later, America’s longest war still grinds on today—mostly on autopilot. We have spent perhaps $2 trillion and lost nearly 2,400 servicemen in Afghanistan, yet we are losing the war.
We will continue to defend our homeland and citizens from terrorist attacks from wherever they originate around the world—whether Afghanistan, ungoverned territories in Pakistan, Africa, or anywhere else—with robust intelligence, surveillance, and global reconnaissance assets in close coordination between CIA, FBI, and local law enforcement. Perpetuating the permanent failure of 17 years of troops on the ground in Afghanistan, however, must come to an end.
“Fort Trump” would be the opposite of a deterrent, and would thus make both Poland and America less safe. President Trump should reject the idea of “Fort Trump” as soon as possible.
The United States, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel, the Assad regime, the remnants of ISIS, and various militias and terrorist organizations—sometimes distinguishable, but often not—are all in battle. The longer Washington maintains its reckless and unnecessary military intervention, the more likely a direct clash with Iran or Russia becomes.
European members of NATO have the means to do far for their own security and the security of their region than what many are currently doing. The Trump administration should take a step beyond just issuing strong statements of protest.
The U.S. is still the most powerful country on the planet, but it can only keep that title if its power is not overextended. The United States is prosperous, but it cannot afford to forget about what’s most important: seeking mutually beneficial engagement with all nations when necessary, setting realistic defense priorities that elevate the safety of the American people, defending our way of life and promoting our economic prosperity above an obsession with the “liberal order.”
Deterrence and non-interference would be an improvement over aimless sanctions, recognizing the escalation cycles and incentives at play. Sanctions cannot bend Russia to America's will, but deterrence and a calculation by Washington not to back itself—or Moscow—into a corner can prevent the situation from getting worse.
The United States should not invade Iran, and we are by no means bound on course toward intervention. But the Trump team must be more careful here. No more half-facts and mixed messages. No more feckless suggestions that absolutely everything is on the table to force Tehran to bend to Washington’s will. No more use of sanctions as a universal tool of statecraft, a lazy and callous substitute for diplomacy. And certainly no more talk of regime change, which more than anything else is guaranteed to keep Iran away from the negotiating table Trump says he wants.
To inform citizens, thought leaders, and policy makers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America's narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure American security.