Pentagon Says Obama’s War Against ISIS Likely To Last Years
The war against ISIS continues to silently escalate, with little input from the people’s representatives in Congress.
The war against ISIS continues to silently escalate, with little input from the people’s representatives in Congress.
As we head into a new conflict, perhaps we ought to give more thought to fiscal issues than the President is to overall strategy.
The sixth year of a presidency leads to some predictable commentary (and some comparative notes).
While the world pays attention to Syria and Iraq, Yemen is once against lurching into chaos.
President Obama has opened a new front in his “war” against ISIS
The GOP has bounced back significantly from the lows it experienced after last year’s government shutdown.
President Obama is still insisting that his war against ISIS will not require American ground troops. He’s not being honest with the American people.
Everyone knows that Israel has had nuclear weapons for decades. Don’t tell anyone—it’s a secret.
So much for the President’s promise about ‘no ground troops.’
Iran and the United States are on the same side in the fight against ISIS, whether they like it or not.
After keeping his distance from them for three years, President Obama is placing much misplaced hope in the “moderate” Syrian rebels,
Despite the President’s assurances of an international coalition, the rest of the world doesn’t seem all that interested in joining the fight.
The Obama Administration’s legal justification for war against ISIS is laughably flimsy.
If the President is going to increase American involvement in the Middle East, he needs to address some fundamental questions first.
Congress seems ready to avoid having to vote on expanded attacks against the Islamic State
Massive US intervention has for now liberated Amerli, averting humanitarian disaster. Another crisis looms.
As talk begins of expanding the war against ISIS into Syria, it is becoming long past time for Congress to exercise its Constitutional function.
Some have argued that there is an historical bias against political parties holding on to the White House for more than two terms. As with most commonly held ideas, that simply isn’t true.
American journalist James Foley has been beheaded by the terrorist network calling itself the Islamic State.
Some on the left are saying that Hillary Clinton isn’t doing enough to help Democrats in 2014.
The chattering class is chattering about the President’s vacation again. It really is quite tiresome.
The shooting of Michael Brown is just another example of an ongoing problem.
The United States is, in fact, doing the exact opposite.
Does Hillary Clinton remember that she was Secretary of State for four years?
It’s hard for a party to win four straight presidential elections. The Democrats may pull it off.
President Obama doesn’t seem to have any idea what he wants to do in Iraq.
End game? Or the potential spark of a wider war?
Americans have become deeply cynical about government. To some extent that is a good thing, but it’s reaching unhealthy levels.
For the second time in just over ten years, the United States is involved in military action in Iraq.
Fairly or not, the President has created the impression that he is not a good leader, and there’s not much he can do about it at this point.
Add Libya to the list of the world’s trouble spots.
My latest for War on the Rocks: “Don’t Believe Everything You Read in the Papers.”
Relying on the policies of a man who was President in a very different time is not a substitute for a rational foreign policy.
George Will has come under criticism for pointing out what seems to be an undeniable fact.
Crisis seems to be brewing all over the world, but the American people aren’t persuaded that it’s necessary for the United States to act.
Basically, the answer is that nobody really thought there was much of a risk that a plane could be shot down.