Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz
His reading list focuses on how liberty is won, lost, and neglected. By Jonathan Rauch.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, weighs in on President Obama’s recent visit to Israel.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, discusses his upcoming book Israel and the Struggle over the International Laws of War.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, notes that Israel has the right to defend itself against the threat posed by Iran. He also discusses whether Obama should delay an attack on Iran.
Peter Berkowitz, the Tad and Dianne Taube Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, defends the international laws of war by exposing the flawed assumptions and defective claims that have gained currency from The Goldstone Report (2009 Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission) and the Gaza Flotilla controversy.
Secure Freedom Radio's Frank Gaffney interviews Hoover fellow Peter Berkowitz about Israel and the struggle over the international laws of war.
Parsing the State Department Policy Planning Staff’s New China Report with Peter Berkowitz.
Bill Hagerty and Peter Berkowitz discuss U.S. Foreign Policy Strategy in the Indo-Pacific on Wednesday, March 24 at 3:30 PM Eastern.
A horrific news report from Afghanistan brings to light a wide problem afflicting the American and Israeli way of war—but, no, it is not what you think.
The world continues to feed Palestinians’ delusions that they will one day return to land that is now part of Israel—encouraging the Palestinians to spurn peaceful solutions that could actually be attained.
The prospect for peace in the Middle East requires believing in miracles.
To understand the sometimes glaring gaps between candidate Obama’s promises and President Obama’s policies, it is useful to appreciate an old tension in American progressivism. . . .
Bin Laden is gone now, dispatched from this earthly realm in 2011 by the Navy’s lethal SEAL Team Six. Yet we remain mired in the seemingly endless fighting in the Middle East, and the rationale for that is in dire need of clarification, if not justification.
Be careful when one uses the superlative case—best, most, -est, etc.—or evokes end-of-the-world imagery...
Journalist Christopher Hitchens discusses neoconservatives and the left, his break with The Nation magazine over his support of the war in Iraq, and his tour of the three members of the "axis of evil."
George W. Bush, during the 2000 presidential campaign said that "America has never been an empire... We may be the only great power in history that had the chance, and refused." Was then-candidate Bush right when he made those remarks? Or has America become an imperial power in all but name? How do America's unique historical circumstances predispose it to handle the unrivaled power it holds in the world today? And what lessons can we draw from our nearest historical antecedent, the British Empire of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries?
Over the past year, the clashes between the Bush administration and European leaders over the best way to handle Saddam Hussein have led many observers to suggest that the half-century-long alliance between Western Europe and the United States is dead. How serious is the rift between Europe and America, and why has it emerged? Is it still in the strategic interest of the United States to maintain tens of thousands of troops in Europe, or should we pull out of NATO altogether?
Do the neoconservatives know how to win the war on terror? Much has been made of the influence within the Bush administration of neoconservatives—those who tend to take a hard line in the war on terror and who favored the war in Iraq. Recently two men close to the Bush administration, Richard Perle and David Frum, wrote a book laying out the neoconservative agenda for winning the war on terror and making America safe. Their agenda is bold and ambitious. Critics would say it is reckless and dangerous. Who's right?
In the modern democratic era, it's not uncommon for elected leaders to have little or no military training or experience. It has become an accepted notion that political leaders should therefore leave battle plans and campaign decisions to the military commanders and avoid "micromanaging" war. But is that notion correct? Or was Clemenceau right when he said that "war is too important to be left to the generals"? What lessons can we learn from studying the greatest wartime leaders, such as Lincoln, Churchill, and FDR?