The president of the United States is not a traitor. That’s a good thing.
How the plan would make America less safe
Trump might well wrap up the war in Afghanistan, but only by giving up on America’s original goals.
It’s astonishing that any U.S. president would rewrite history to take Leonid Brezhnev’s side.
The secretary of defense did well to protect the military from politicization, against overwhelming force.
His capricious decision to withdraw troops from Syria will create havoc.
In Twilight of the Titans, two scholars provide a warning to a rising China, and a road map for the United States to regain its standing.
At an international conference, allies grieved the loss of the United States they had believed in.
This president, like Eisenhower, already knows what he wants in national-security policy—but what he wants are policies that are contradictory and unpredictable.
There’s a case to be made for leaving the INF—but the president’s administration has needlessly driven up the costs.
An imperfect leader, John McCain reveled in the struggle, and stood beside those who tried to improve the world.
The spectacle in Helsinki is over. Now it’s time for Congress—and the American people—to act.
Here’s how the president’s bets look when viewed through the lens of behavioral economics.
And it does not involve a commitment to change the horrible and predictable outcome of the civil war.
History proves they can help the U.S. keep other countries in check.
In this one area at least, the administration’s policy has been focused and effective.
The resources the administration is willing to commit are at yawning variance with its ambitious goals.
The administration is imperiling the very minority communities it claims to want to protect.
Trump’s national-security officials are making many of the same arguments Bush’s did in 2003.
The limits of “moderating influence” on the president of the United States