The way Egypt is behaving, it is simply a bad deal for Washington to continue to ritualistically open its wallet without thinking about the return on investment. Foreign assistance should be earned, not treated as an unquestioned entitlement. Above all, Washington’s generosity must serve the interests of the United States, and benefit the American people—especially the taxpayers who fund it.
An uninformed public leads to erratic and uninformed policies. Congress possesses the authority to rebalance a scale between the executive and legislative branches that has tilted heavily in favor of the executive for decades. For the health and vibrancy of the American republic, lawmakers better start using it.
Trump undeniably has a number of flaws, some of them significant—and even his staunchest supporters couldn’t honestly claim he hasn’t made mistakes. But Trump’s departure from establishment thinking and his willingness to challenge status quo policies is not only right, it is desperately needed.
As Mattis and Nicholson have realized, there is no military victory to be had in Afghanistan. Diplomacy and political solutions are the best options. The U.S. military is by far the most powerful in the world, and it can do many things well. Yet nation-building Afghanistan is not one of them. Internal political problems will not be wiped away by an external military force.
Yes, terrorism making use of modern technologies can cause harm to a number of people, but claiming that any instances of terrorism in the world are a threat to our civilization is a historically inaccurate exaggeration. This type of rhetoric gives practitioners of terrorism precisely what they want—an image and influence that outsizes their actual size and capability.
Overcoming 70 years of mistrust is bound to be a fitful, decades-long process. But doing so is essential to forging a durable peace on the Korean peninsula. For that reason, the United States should throw its full support behind the burgeoning DPRK-ROK dialogue—even if that means putting denuclearization on the back burner.
It is estimated that well over a thousand interpreters have been killed while waiting for their visa applications to process. Any further (and unnecessary) tightening of security requirements will sign the death warrants of hundreds more.
There are no panaceas or cost-free resolutions for the United States on the North Korean nuclear issue. But the Trump administration can still effectively manage it without resorting to a war that would be horrific and counterproductive.
The most logical, rational course of action the U.S. could pursue regarding North Korea—and the one that gives us the best chance to accomplish our primary objectives—is to engage in relentless diplomacy backed firmly by unblinking military deterrence.
Rather than fiddling with troop levels and repeating reckless errors of the past in a vain attempt to win an unwinnable war, the United States’ chief occupation in Afghanistan now must be negotiating for peace.
China’s gains have upped the cost of going to war against it, but there are several reasons why that shift doesn’t much threaten East Asia’s peace or demand splashy new U.S. military efforts.
The Trump administration cannot afford to make U.S. national security policy in a vacuum. It would be foolish on its face for Washington to allow emotions to dictate when the U.S. chooses to deploy its military. And the test could not be any more clear: military force should only be used when core national security interests are at stake; when the security of Americans are directly threatened; and when the domestic tranquility and prosperity of the country is placed at risk.
Because the NDAA is a “must pass” initiative dealing with national security, getting language into the bill that benefits a member’s district or state is a high priority for most offices. And thus the vehicle used to give troops a pay raise and ensure they are adequately trained becomes one of the most pork-laden and parochial bills in Congress.
Comments like these from Macron and Maas suggest that, three decades after the Cold War ended, Europe is finally ready to defend its own continent. That’s a good deal for Americans—if only Washington would take it.
America not spending millions in Syria means that there is one less excuse for American troops to remain in that country indefinitely. Trump is exactly right to think that ending the aid program brings America one step closer to exiting Syria.
Preserving American security and protecting U.S. economic interests in the Asia-Pacific region are our vital, strategic interests—and they must be Trump’s top objectives. Those aims are realistic, within our power to accomplish, and can be attained in cost-effective ways. Reagan’s classic “peace through strength” is the vehicle through which American interests can best be maintained with North Korea.
Certainly, Chinese military developments bear watching. But that does not mean those developments are direct military threats to U.S. national security that require a U.S. response.
So long as U.S. military power remains in Afghanistan, the government in Kabul is almost certain to remain solvent and in power; however menacing and resurgent the Taliban, they will never be able to physically overrun the capital and take power so long as American troops and air power remain. But whether it is the 140,000 U.S. and NATO troops Obama tried, the 15,000 troops Trump currently employs, or Prince’s proposed 2001 reboot with 6,000 mercenaries, the military mission will continue to fail.
Overuse of our military and underdevelopment of their capabilities over the past two decades have eroded our once-overwhelming global military dominance. To reimpose that large gap and increase the overall security of our country, we must better preserve our force, and begin to immediately curtail our active—and largely unnecessary— combat deployments around the globe. Successfully doing so will increase our national security.
The Trump administration should withdraw American support from the Saudi-led coalition. Stop sharing intelligence; stop refueling planes; stop lending credibility to this catastrophe by associating it with the United States; and stop selling the Saudi regime and its partners weapons like the one used in this inexcusable attack.
There is no U.S. national security objective to be served in continuing to intervene in a tertiary conflict with no direct connection to U.S. security and economic prosperity.
The sooner the United States removes itself from the Yemen catastrophe, the better. There are no good sides in this war and Washington should stop convincing itself otherwise.
Hovering over it all is the critical question, one that hasn’t been answered by the foreign policy elite with any detail: what is the U.S. still doing in Afghanistan? What is our strategic end goal? After 17 years, how long do we plan to stay?
South Korea has an investment in solving this problem which the United States does not share. Even given North Korea’s recent advances in ballistic technology, there is no world in which the Kim regime can pose an existential threat to America. South Korea does not boast the same security: Seoul’s metro area of 25 million is a mere 35 miles from the demilitarized zone (DMZ) separating the two countries, which means a war in which Kim believes he has nothing left to lose could mean unspeakable carnage for the South.
We should always favor engagement over bravado, especially with nuclear armed countries. Russia is an adversary, but that doesn’t mean we can’t talk to Russia, and even work with Russia on areas of shared interest. The American people should wonder why so many of their politicians don’t seem to agree.
Adopting territorial taxation for individual Americans is good policy. It would bring U.S. tax laws in line with global standards. It would simplify legal compliance for overseas Americans and reduce obstacles to their aspirations to serve others. Most importantly, it would enhance U.S. influence and prosperity while enriching Americans wherever they live.
Americans in particular should also never forget that Turkey or any other member country being included in NATO puts the U.S. on the hook for their defense. How many in the U.S. would be willing to send troops to wage war—or even risk nuclear war—over Turkey? These questions are rarely asked, but should be asked, and asked first.
Russia is a country that needs to be told not to mess with American elections again. It is also one that the United States needs to grudgingly live with because it has nuclear weapons.Any fantasies of U.S.-imposed regime change in Moscow or fears that Putin is Hitler are out of touch with reality and ignore history. It is possible to warn off Moscow from harming U.S. interests while also concluding that relations with Russia must not deteriorate further. The catch is having a Congress and President who will work together to make this a priority..
A prospective agreement such as this would not be a panacea. .But as experts on the Hermit Kingdom often say, North Korea is the land of lousy options. It is the Trump administration’s job to find the least lousy in the bunch. The U.S. can either do the same thing it has been doing for over a quarter-century while expecting a different result, or it can accept the current state of affairs and attempt to make the best of an unenviable situation.
The first step toward a more secure, more prosperous, more fair world is to keep track of which allies are living up to their obligations and which are not. The U.S. government must serve American interests. And instead of living at U.S. taxpayer expense, our allies must rediscover the virtues of self-government.
The crucial thing to understand during Paul’s tour this week and when future U.S.-Russian visits hopefully develop is that talking is not weak. Diplomacy is not the opposite of toughness. It is the result of a clear-eyed understanding that foreign relations are painted in shades of gray, that negotiating with reprehensible people and regimes is often the least bad option. In this case, it is our difficult but imperative route away from war.
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.