The war on terrorism has created unique ideological challenges for both ends of the American political spectrum. Does the left, long opposed to the exercise of U.S. military power, risk irrelevance by opposing the war on terror? How does the libertarian wing of the right, long opposed to big government, respond to its expanding role in protecting our security? How has President Bush's conduct of the war on terrorism affected his chances for reelection in 2004?
Peter Berkowitz on With All Our Might: A Progessive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty edited by Will Marshall and The Good Fight: Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again by Peter Beinart
Former Illinois senator Everett Dirksen once opined, "The oil can is mightier than the sword."...
As my Foreign Policy colleagues Kori Schake and Peter Feaver have written recently, such partisan endorsements by former military officials are growing more frequent, and risk turning the military into even more of a political football than it already is. "Such political endorsements contribute to toxic civil-military relations," writes Feaver. They "damage ... the norm of a non-partisan military that has served our country well."
During a distinguished Army career, Chris Gibson, who spent a year as a Hoover national security fellow, displayed brains, determination, and courage. Now he’s testing his mettle in Congress.
As the world sees it, America tends to dash off to war without moral authority. How we could change that view. By Shelby Steele.
Three centuries of gloomy forecasts about America