It’s time to rein in America’s crusading zeal and move toward a policy of restraint. We’re suffering from a bad case of foreign-policy overextension, and the only cure is taking a step back to reexamine our global role.
The sharp divides within the conservative movement are more imagined than real. Any conservative—whether "paleo" or "neo"— would object to a foreign policy bereft of values.
As president, Teddy Roosevelt was not the Bull Moose of his earlier years. His prudence and respect for the balance of power are a model for any future president.
The advent of a new historical epoch requires boldness in foreign policy architecture. Though less studied than the post-World War II master builders, Charles Evans Hughes' effort after World War I is a worthy case in point.
Hamilton's legacy is all around us. So why has his wisdom--particularly as concerns foreign affairs--been discounted?
Talk of vital interests has become canonical on Capitol Hill. But when pressed to identify these interests, too many congressional Republicans fall silent.
The U.S. military is now more alienated from its civilian leadership than at any time in American history, and more vocal about it.
The simultaneous explosion of economic growth in still-authoritarian China and economic collapse in increasingly democratic Russia rekindles an old debate.
Classifications such as interventionist and isolationist, hawk and dove, realist and idealist, and multilateralist and unilateralist do not make much sense in the absence of the Cold War's defining conditions.