Time Running Out in Korea: How Offensive US Military Action would Prove Catastrophic

Time Running Out in Korea: How Offensive US Military Action would Prove Catastrophic

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said the U.S. was “running out of time” to solve the crisis in Korea, implying that military action will be needed within “a few months.” He is wrong.  Time is on our side, not on Kim Jong-un’s. A rational, logical, and patient foreign policy will preserve the lives of our allies, prevent the use of nuclear weapons by North Korea, and increase American security. If time is running out on anything, I fear it may be on hoping Trump chooses a rational policy instead of a reckless militaristic one.

Vilifying talking to Russia is bad for America

Vilifying talking to Russia is bad for America

We can’t reshape the world in America’s image through military force or coercion, and trying to do so often backfires. Of course we should talk to Russia and Putin, especially when treating Putin as something he is not may even prolong his autocratic reign. We have been warned by statesmen of old to not obsess over unrealistic threats from over the ocean. These statesmen loathed foreign tyrants, but they knew that an America true to her principles would always win the long game. Time to take those warnings to heart.

Now is the time for dialogue with North Korea

Now is the time for dialogue with North Korea

Deterrence coupled with hard-nosed diplomacy is vital, now more than ever, and should be far and away the centerpiece of U.S. action toward North Korea. Offering China a smaller U.S. presence in South Korea in exchange for effective suasion of the Kim regime is one option the Trump administration should consider, as is exploration of outcomes in which Pyongyang’s nuclear power is contained rather than eliminated (which is fantasy).

Congress must move forward with an AUMF

Congress must move forward with an AUMF

Placing the ultimate decision-making authority into the hands of the branch most intimately connected to the American people had a purpose.  Because declaring war generally meant mobilizing the entire nation into a volatile environment, drafting the young into the armed services, and raising taxes to pay for the war effort, the Constitution thrust the decision upon the American people—through their elected representatives in Washington—to vote on whether it was in the U.S. national security interest to do so.

The Trump administration’s dangerous argument for unlimited war

The Trump administration’s dangerous argument for unlimited war

To permit any administration to wage preventive war “anywhere, anytime … against an ideology wherever they perceive it to be” is “very, very dangerous,” Paul continued, because it leads to a costly, “rudderless, “whack-a-mole foreign policy” in which Washington wins lots of little battles at the too-high strategic price of endless military commitments that ultimately offer more risk than defense. “We're a target everywhere we go,” Paul said, “and, yes, we can defeat anyone, but I don't think, in the end, it ends the war.” The last 16 years have proven this point. The White House may not be too concerned about that, but war-weary Americans most certainly are.