U.S. officials are making clear that the current mission in Libya may not lead to the end of Muammar Gaddafi’s rule. If that’s the case, then why are we there in the first place?
With minor exceptions, all of the potential candidates for the GOP nomination in 2012 seem to have accepted the idea that defense spending, and the Bush-era interventionist foreign policy, are off the table when it comes time to talk spending cuts.
The Obama Administration is asking the U.N. Security Council to authorize direct military intervention in Libya. The question is, why now?
New York Times journalists Anthony Shadid, Stephen Farrell, Tyler Hicks, and Lynsey Addario have not been heard from in more than 24 hours.
Archaeologists may have found the lost city of Atlantis. And, no, not the one in the Bahamas.
Who wants that job? (And is willing to work that hard to get it?)
Establishing a no-fly zone in Libya won’t stop the Civil War, and it’s likely to draw the United States further into a conflict that it needs to stay out of.
Intervening to “help” the Libyan revolt is very tempting, but it’s a temptation we ought to resist.
Establishing a no-fly zone isn’t likely to be enough to remove the current Libyan regime from power.
The uprisings in the Arab world have led some to suggest that the Middle East isn’t “ready” to be free. They’re wrong.
Egypt takes another step towards constitutional reform.
The situation in Libya continues to be grim as Gaddafi lashes out while power slips through his fingers.
Nine years into a war that seems to be without end, it’s time to declare victory and go home.
The Constitutional Reform Commitee has finished its work and will report its recommendations to the military.
It’s a Republican meme that President Obama has “apologized” for America repeatedly. The one problem with the meme is that there aren’t any facts to support it.
The continuing chaos in Libya could have a serious impact on the U.S. economy, especially if it spreads to other oil producing nations.