David B. Rivkin, Jr.

Essays

American law treats terrorism like an act of war, not a crime. The fact that Europeans don’t doesn’t make their way better.

The International Committee of the Red Cross strains at the gnat of American unilateralism and swallows the camel of terrorist atrocities. Stop applauding.

As "senior" members of the foreign policy establishment, Abramowitz's and General Odom's calls for withdrawal from Iraq deserve consideration. But they they are unconvincing, Rivkin writes.

With regard to the laws of war, the United States and Europe now operate under completely different legal codes.

International law is rapidly evolving a direction thaat threatens American sovereignty. With careful attention, however, the United States can mold the law to its advantage.

Reviews

With the campaign season heating up, David Rivkin says that new books by Madeleine Albright and Zbigniew Brzezinski might not provide the soundest advice.

Commentary

Since the fall of Baghdad, transatlantic debate continues unabated.

The threat posed by Iraq's WMD programs was a key American justification for launching Operation Iraqi Freedom.

As the military campaign in Iraq continues, United States and other Coalition forces have scrupulously followed the applicable requirements of the laws and customs of war--despite the charges levied by the Iraqi leadership.

Pierre Hassner's "friendly questions" (In the National Interest, December 4, 2002) are indeed mostly friendly and reflect the sentiments of one of Europe's most preeminent defense intellectuals, but deserve a friendly rejoinder.

 The war on terrorism is not simply the disruption of terrorist plots and the detention of suspects.

Follow The National Interest

May 24, 2013