America’s war in Afghanistan is fostering anger, not security

America’s war in Afghanistan is fostering anger, not security

U.S. withdrawal would not fix Afghanistan’s problems—and the violence that has plagued that country since long before American troops deployed in 2001 will continue for the foreseeable future. But it requires a break from reality to argue that staying put offers any plausible route to U.S.-orchestrated peace. Extending this generational conflict will only add to the list of unintended and unwanted consequences of years-long occupation. It will only increase the costs of Washington’s strategic foreign policy failure, mire us deeper in a futile nation-building project, and foster anger and chaos instead of the stability Afghanistan needs.

Offset emergencies, just not right away

Offset emergencies, just not right away

Unexpected federal spending must be an option for emergencies, but the consequences cannot be ignored. Instead of trying and failing to pursue immediate offsets, however, a more realistic approach would recoup those costs over several years. Congress could still address immediate challenges without losing sight of the big picture. That’s the balance the American people expect their public servants to strike on their behalf.

Why Trump is right: The United States should leave Syria now

Why Trump is right: The United States should leave Syria now

The White House ordered the Pentagon to pull all U.S. troops out from Syria immediately. President Donald Trump tweeted: “We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump presidency,” a stance that immediately received pushback from more interventionist lawmakers. In addition to the decision to pull out of Syria, made last week, a senior Pentagon official also suggested that troop reductions in Afghanistan are also under discussion.

Defense budgeting should be a strategy debate, not a rubber stamp for higher spending

Defense budgeting should be a strategy debate, not a rubber stamp for higher spending

When a project is so grossly mismanaged, that alone should raise strategic questions: Is this something we need to do? Is it crucial to U.S. security? Is it protecting vital U.S. interests and keeping Americans safe? Do the American people even want this done on their behalf? Don’t only ask whether the price for U.S. support of the Saudi war in Yemen was right; ask if it was right for the United States to be involved at all: Should we have refueled those bombers in the first place? Polling indicates most Americans say “no,” and with good reason.

Venezuelans need aid, not the Marines

Venezuelans need aid, not the Marines

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.

Mattis shouldn’t wait 30 days: He can pull the U.S. out from Yemen now

Mattis shouldn’t wait 30 days: He can pull the U.S. out from Yemen now

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.