GW Bush Administration
- All
- Economics
- Environment
- Security
- Law & Institutions
- Politics & Society
- U.S. Policy
- Defense Policy
- Domestic Politics
- Foreign Policy
- Obama Administration
- GW Bush Administration
- Clinton Administration
- GHW Bush Administration
- Reagan Administration
- Carter Administration
- Ford Administration
- Nixon Administration
- Johnson Administration
- Kennedy Administration
- Eisenhower Administration
- Truman Administration
- FD Roosevelt Administration
- Pre-1932 Administration
- Grand Strategy
- Legal Issues
- Foreign Aid
- Public Diplomacy
- Govt. Institutions
- Homeland Security
- Intelligence
- Economics
- Environment
- Security
- Law & Institutions
- Politics & Society
- U.S. Policy
- previous-disabled
- Page 1of 22
- next
The Obama administration has bolstered the International Criminal Court in an effort to prevent atrocities worldwide. Still, Congressional opposition and developments in conflicts abroad might make it hard for Washington to continue to cooperate with the court.
A decade ago, when the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, the United States chose to immerse itself in the greater Middle East when it had little reason to dive in. But now that most Americans want little to do with the region, U.S. officials are finding it difficult to turn away.
The United States' approach to counterinsurgency, championed by General David Petraeus, helped produce stunning results in parts of Iraq and Afghanistan. In retrospect, however, the fuss over the doctrine seems overblown. It achieved mere tactical successes and only in combination with other, non-military factors.
Africa's thriving democracies and economies, and its alarming transnational security threats, make it more important than ever to the United States. Obama, however, has largely ignored the continent. Regardless of who wins in November, Washington cannot afford to continue on the president's current path.
Far from being a needless waste, as other authors have argued, mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles are worth the price tag. They are essential tools for protecting U.S. troops in irregular warfare and on uncertain terrain abroad.
Debates about the possibility of containing a nuclear Iran often hinge on judgments of whether the regime there is rational. But as a wealth of recently released Iraqi documents about Saddam Hussein’s tumultuous reign in Iraq show, even an arguably rational leader can be unreasonable -- and very hard to deter.
Weeks after the last U.S. soldier finally left the country, Iraq is on the road to becoming a failed state, with a deadlocked political system, an authoritarian leader, and a looming threat of disintegration. Baghdad can still pull itself together, but only if Washington starts applying the right kind of democratic pressure -- and fast.
It’s tempting to see the 9/11 attacks as having fundamentally changed U.S. foreign policy. It’s also wrong. The Bush administration may have gone over the top in responding, but its course was less novel than generally believed. A quest for primacy and military supremacy, a readiness to act proactively and unilaterally, and a focus on democracy and free markets -- all are long-standing features of U.S. policy.
Due to the U.S. experience in Iraq, Americans became skeptical of intervening in overseas conflicts. Much of this "Iraq syndrome" can be seen in the hesitant approach to the chaos in Libya.
The surge of U.S. troops into Iraq helped decrease violence and set the stage for the eventual U.S. withdrawal. But the country still has a long way to go before it becomes sovereign and self-reliant. To stabilize itself and realize its democratic aspirations, Iraq needs Washington's continued support.
- previous-disabled
- Page 1of 22
- next
