Leading From Behind: To Where?
An aide’s compliment about the president “leading from behind” has generated controversy.
An aide’s compliment about the president “leading from behind” has generated controversy.
The NYT says it’s time for U. S. advisers and military air traffic controllers on the ground in Libya.
Events in Syria, and the world’s response to them, are revealing the moral bankruptcy of the justification for the war in Libya.
The Pentagon is frustrated that the Obama administration doesn’t “seem to understand what military force can and cannot do.”
It may be time to change rules keeping women out of combat roles. But “fairness” isn’t the right question.
To borrow a phrase: budgeting is the science of muddling through (with an emphasis on the “muddling” far more than the “science.”
Stephen Walt doesn’t expect Obama’s foreign policy to change along with the names on the org chart.
Defense Secretary Gates hinted this week that the U.S. would stay in Iraq if the Iraqis wanted. It doesn’t seem like they do.
For the past day or so, America’s fighting men have been pawns in a cynical political game.
The duty to defend “hateful, extremely disrespectful, and enormously intolerant” expression.
President Obama says he acted in Libya to avert an imminent genocide, but there’s no evidence that any such thing was about to occur.
The ability of people to put aside rational judgment when it comes to political figures is, in a word, puzzling.
Like all Presidents before him, Barack Obama is asserting the right to virtually unfettered discretion when it comes to military matters.
The “Obama Doctrine,” such as it is, seems to boil down to moral self-certainty combined with a glaring ignorance of reality. That’s a dangerous combination.
Ten days after sending American forces into kinetic military action in Libya, President Obama addressed the nation to explain “what we’ve done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.”
Senator Joe Lieberman said today that we should intervene in Syria using the same rationale we did for Libya. Because, you know, what’s the big deal about a fourth war?
President Obama’s grand coalition against Libya is a lot less than meets the eye.
The public, and Congress, are skeptical of the mission in Libya, and the reason for that is because the President has failed to tell us exactly why we’re there and what we’ll be doing.
It has become quite apparent that neither the White House nor our coalition partners have any idea what the path to an endgame in Libya even looks like. That’s not good.
Newt Gingrich on Libya: “This is as badly executed, I think, as any policy we’ve seen since WWII, and it will become a case study for how not to engage in this type of activity.”
When America’s leaders make the decision to engage in military action abroad, has the time for debate ended, or is it more important than ever that those with doubts about the policy speak out?
Operation Odyssey Dawn has resurrected the eternal battle over what limits there are, and should be, on the President’s ability to use military force without Congressional authorization.
The antiwar movement has been strangely silent despite the fact that U.S. foreign policy hasn’t really changed that much since Barack Obama became President.
There must be a predisposition against war and we should only engage in just wars.
There are many opportunities to go to war. Here’s a guide for choosing between them.
America is about to enter a third war in the Muslim world with no clear idea of the end game.
Public support for the war in Afghanistan continues to plummet, but will that hurt the President when 2012 rolls around?
John Kerry’s Washington Post op-ed supports U. S. leadership in establishing a no-fly zone in Libya.