By Matt Fay, on November 19th, 2012
Sure, Max Boot makes terrible historical analogies, but I’ve always just assumed that the disagreements I have with him are based on honest differences and not utter ignorance. After today, I’m no longer sure that’s the case. Writing at Commentary Magazine’s Contentions blog, Boot argues,
The latest Gaza war is only a few days old, but already one conclusion can be drawn: missile defense works. This is only the latest vindication for the vision of Ronald Reagan… who made missile defense a major priority for the U.S. and our allies.
Boot is referring to the Iron Dome system co-developed . . .
→ read more
By Matt Fay, on August 31st, 2012
Mitt Romney delivered his long-awaited speech to the Republican National Convention last night accepting the party’s nomination for president. The foreign policy section of the speech ran through the usual litany of complaints about Obama—his non-existent “apology tour,” he doesn’t reference American exceptionalism a minimum of 75 times in every speech, etc.—and was notable for not mentioning the decade-plus war in Afghanistan at all. But one thing he did mention, Obama’s supposed betrayal of Poland by removing ten planned missile defense interceptors, reflects an odd, but infuriating habit among conservatives.
The offending sentence came toward the end of the . . .
→ read more
By Matt Fay, on July 27th, 2012
Updated below
Congressman Adam Smith of Washington is generally pretty sharp on a wide-range of defense and foreign policy issues. As the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, he has displayed an admirable for addressing policy, strategy, and legislation in a thoughtful manner. Many of the positions he holds are of debatable quality, but that’s largely the case for the overwhelming majority of congress. Still, he seems to approach policy with a wonkish dedication to understanding the issues his committee deals with each day. That’s why a recent statement of his about the foreign policy of a . . .
→ read more
By Harrison Moar, on June 26th, 2012
NATO members are meeting today to discuss Syria downing a Turkish fighter jet. Concern is rising that this incident could pull NATO into an armed conflict. Turkey has called the meeting under Article 4 of the Washington Treaty—just the second time this has been invoked in NATO history—which states:
The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.
The circumstances and facts of the incident are not clear. What is clear, however, is that Turkey is not taking this situation lightly . . .
→ read more
By Harrison Moar, on June 25th, 2012
Ben Hubbard of the Associated Press filed a fascinating yet sobering report last week after being embedded with Syrian opposition fighters for two weeks. The report provides great insight into the debate over arming the Syrian opposition. It paints a picture of groups that are disorganized and lacking in basic communication. As the fighting becomes bloodier and the chaos grows, it becomes more evident that a U.S. or NATO intervention would be subject to numerous unintended consequences. Specifically, arming the wrong opposition groups should be a main concern. But relying on the hope that the C.I.A. can acquire sufficient . . .
→ read more
By Harrison Moar, on April 20th, 2012
This is a guest contribution from Maria Andersen. She is a researcher living in Washington, DC.
Until recently, Gary Johnson, the presumptive Libertarian Party presidential nominee, has been clear on his foreign policy views. He has argued for the removal of troops in Afghanistan. He was against intervention in Libya. He is not in favor of the drone wars in Pakistan and Yemen. Johnson justifies his views by pointing out that none of these countries pose any military threat to the United States. Johnson has said:
Given trillion-dollar deficits, America simply cannot afford to be engaged . . .
→ read more
By Matt Fay, on February 28th, 2012
This a guest contribution from H.A. The author is using a pseudonym for professional reasons.
Recently, I found myself aboard the USS Wasp sailing towards yet another U.S. intervention. The Wasp, a Marine aircraft carrier or LHD ship, was part of an amphibious force sent to aid a U.S. ally, the nation of Amber, recently invaded by its nefarious neighbor, Garnet. Once ashore, U.S. Marines, along with coalition forces, would push back the invasion and restore the border. The day before D-Day, as we navigated a narrow strait, hoping the minesweepers had done their job, I wondered how Washington . . .
→ read more
By Harrison Moar, on February 24th, 2012
Pundits, academics, and the mainstream media have turned the volume up to eleven on the “Bomb Iran” debate in the past two months. Much of the discussion has been healthy, indeed necessary when discussing matters of nuclear proliferation and war. But much of the reporting and opining has also been reckless fear-mongering (see Glenn Greenwald’s assessment). And most arguments for a preemptive strike are premised on the assertion that the Iranian regime will eventually pursue nuclear weapons, if it is not already.
So it is refreshing to see a few major outlets cutting through the noise and stepping back . . .
→ read more
By Matt Fay, on January 28th, 2012
There’s a ridiculous meme making the rounds from defense budget-boosters that needs to be put to rest. Mitt Romney broadcast it to a national audience at the South Carolina Republican primary debate on January 16th when he claimed that the United States Navy “is smaller than its been since 1917. Following the debate the nonpartisan political “fact check” organization, PolitiFact, gave the former Massachusetts governor a “Pants on Fire” rating for the statement. Which, in turn, led to Politico’s “Morning Defense” news round up giving PolitFact an “Epic Fail” for its rating. So who’s right: Romney and Morning Defense . . .
→ read more
By Hans-Inge Langø, on January 28th, 2012
A recent essay by Robert Kagan on the myth of American decline has garnered a lot of attention. I won’t spend too much time reciting what he wrote, but in the piece he quite persuasively argues that all the talk of American decline is a myth. The argument is two-fold, U.S. influence and power in the past has been exaggerated (particularly during the Cold War), and the United States is in a stronger position now than what the current political discussion will have you believe (the great recession has led to the perception of waning U.S. power etc.).
As . . .
→ read more
|
|
