Group items tagged

The Republican National Convention took an uncharacteristic turn toward foreign policy on Wednesday night, as two prominent speakers lashed out at President Barack Obama's leadership in world affairs. "Unfortunately, for four years, we've drifted away from our proudest traditions of global leadership, traditions that are truly bipartisan," said Sen.

Very interesting. I like this quote from the article: "Rice oversaw U.S. foreign policy during a time when many citizens have come to feel the United States overextended itself abroad, entering into two wars that continued well into the Obama administration (and one, Afghanistan, that continues to this day). Perhaps in a nod to that legacy, Rice acknowledged that "there is a weariness -- I know that it feels as if we have carried these burdens long enough." But, she continued, "One of two things will happen if we don't lead: No one will lead and there will be chaos, or someone will fill the vacuum who does not share our values. My fellow Americans, we do not have a choice: We cannot be reluctant to lead, and you cannot lead from behind." For us to discuss: what IS the United States' foreign policy role today? How might it be changing?

"Earlier in the day, Rice had offered some specific criticisms of Obama's handling of the uprising in Syria, accusing the president of waffling and "muting" America's voice."

Hilary Clinton outlines America's new foreign strategy in Foreign Affairs.

A great resource from one of the most respected foreign policy journals in the United States about the current situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and how they may affect the world, not just the United States. It is updated very often, and could act almost as a periodical of sorts, like TIME or Newsweek, but more focused.

"Britain has had the same foreign policy for more than 500 years--to create a disunited Europe."

. Directly, this article is a psycological analysis scientists have done about how misinformation affects peoples actions and decisions, but I also think that it plays a role in the election, foreign relations, and the turns the economy takes.

Further development in the relationship between the US and Russia in Syria. John Kerry will meet with Russia's Sergey Lavrov in Lausanne, Switzerland on Saturday along with foreign ministers from a few other countries that support the rebels and possibly Iran (which supports Assad). PS: This article is way more interesting than my first one so I recommend this one more unless you're in the mood to question humanity and be sad.

I read this article and Aleisha's article about the Syrian civil war, and I was surprised at how complicated the conflict is. I also was not aware of the growing tension between the United States and Russia, so it was interesting reading about the power dynamic happening again. The CNN article, published just one day before the NYT article, portrays US involvement very differently, so I'm interested to see how that develops.

"the "commanding heights" (large-scale industry, foreign trade, banking, and transport) "

As the US armed forces have to scale back due to sequestration, the biggest problem afflicting the Army is how it will adapt--not only to budget cuts, but to a new era of warfare. Drone strikes and special operations are becoming more prominent and crucial for taking out national security threats in foreign countries, but do these smaller operations merit a downsizing of the the current active-duty troop body? Some top officials think it's important to maintain a larger army in case we need to mobilize (i.e. war with Iran or North Korea). On the other hand, other officials think a downsizing is imperative: today, the Army spends absurd amounts on health care and other benefits (52% increase since 2001), while ineffective officers remain in the army so they can receive retirement pensions. As Defense Analyst Arnold Punaro says in this article, "The Department of Defense [is going to turn] into a benefits company that occasionally kills a terrorist". In short, the US Army must change, but it's not clear how that will happen.

Foreign investment in Greece

Disagrees with Samuel P. Huntington's thesis

I began my study of the ISIS conflict by reading an article about the Mosul Dam and how it was a crucial breaking point in the ISIS-Iraq conflict. The forces of ISIS previously spoke of blowing up the Mosul Dam when obtaining control, thus affecting Iraq from Mosul all the way down to Baghdad. Militant forces had been engaging in firefights with armed vehicles in villages surrounding the Mosul Dam and managed to gain control. The Kurdish military and Iraqi Forces, were not doing an adequate job fighting back from the eyes of the US, placing American representatives in the area in jeopardy. Obama ordered airstrikes and within two days of continuous air raids, the Sunni' fighters were subdued enough for the Kurdish and Iraqi forces to move in and retake the Mosul Dam. While Obama says this is not a sign that America is completely joining in so Iraqi and Syrian governments can return to a lack-luster, chaotic governing system, the heavy military presence on foreign soil does seem a bit concerning. Yet, what are the other options in defending fellow Americans? Perhaps the British don't have a large number of representatives in the area, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, made sure he informed his country that they would not be joining in the conflict to any extent. With ISIS militant forces inhabiting various other areas, danger seems to be looming in Iraq and Syria. I'm curious to see if any other foreign nations join into the conflict or let the forces stay enmeshed in conflict.

I liked this article a lot because it paints the slippery slope that the United States will face if they become even more involved with the ISIS situation. Currently, the only USA involvement has been airstrikes/ airs raids as the article states. Will Obama continue to approve of the air strikes or will the situation escalate to a point where boots on the ground are required?

I mentioned this op-ed in a comment on somebody else's post. I linked it in case anybody was interested.

This is a really interesting perspective on this issue and on interventionist foreign policy as a whole. The current situation in Afghanistan is clearly reflective of a larger pattern of American foreign policy and attempted nation building.

Thank you for the exchange of ideas here, CoPo students. . . . it sure feels lousy to have left Afghanistan. I do wonder what the next 12 months will bring.

This is really important for the future of crypto currency especially in stabilizing the currency of foreign countries