Successive U.S. military interventions upended the very international system the U.S. once pledged to uphold. Now the world faces the twin challenges of ISIS and Trump.
ISIS may be on its way out, but the Iraqi city has a long hard road ahead.
Trump’s wars are now all over the map. The peace movement can fight back by joining already thriving intersectional campaigns.
It’s blustery nationalism plus the conventional pieties of the foreign policy establishment.
When it came to race, climate, or diplomacy, Obama was like a visitor from the future. On trade and intervention, however, he was often stuck in the past.
Some see Putin’s Russia as a counterweight to U.S. global meddling. But Moscow is increasingly mimicking Washington’s worst behavior.
He’s right that “world’s policeman” is not a viable role for the U.S. to play. Eventually, someone with a bigger brain and a smaller ego will pick up this message, run with it, and win big at the polls.
For too long Moscow and Washington have tried to out-muscle each other by escalating the Syrian war. Now, for once, they’ve got a chance to escalate their efforts to end it.
In a world awash with weak states, powerful weapons, and crumbling institutions, conflicts can easily continue for generations — and perhaps never end.
Our foreign policy is aggressive, parochial, and hard-hearted. Unless voters finally demand differently, our next president will be the same.
While ISIS makes war on the world’s vast majority of “moderate Muslims,” hardliners in the West pretend they don’t exist.
Our wildly inflated fear of terrorism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Obama’s made a lot of Faustian bargains over the last seven years. But given his likely successors, what we got over the last two terms may be as good as it gets.
The Islamic State’s latest atrocities are a calculated effort to bring the war in Syria home to the countries participating in it.
Putin’s attempt at “shock and awe” in Syria has all the hallmarks of failed U.S. interventions of the past