Obama Administration

Sub-Saharan Africa in the 21st century faces one great opportunity and two great dangers. And American foreign policy will profoundly affect each.

In every year of Mr. Obama’s presidency, without exception, the cause of freedom has been in retreat around the world.

If Gitmo is “contrary to who we are,” to borrow Obama’s language, if EITs “caused immeasurable damage to the United States’ public standing,” to quote the Senate report, then what exactly is a drone war that metes out punishment based on guilt by association and amounts to execution without trial?

Ian Bremmer’s Superpower provides a different perspective to Obama’s description of his incoherent foreign policy in his final State of the Union Address.

With American planes bombing Islamic State targets and Russian planes bombing the non-Islamic State targets, we are now supporting Putin’s aggression in Syria by eliminating all Sunni Arab opponents of the Assad regime.

Instead of reassuring the American people in a moment of crisis, the President’s languid and banal remarks were a scolding exercise in misdirection and meaninglessness

Commentators have devoted lots of print comparing President Barack Obama to other presidents. But on foreign policy, let’s judge the president by placing his record against his own measuring stick.

A Christian approach to the human catastrophe of the Syrian refugee crisis—partially instigated and immeasurably worsened by Mr. Obama’s floundering foreign policy—must reject legislation rooted in fear, bigotry, and nativism. We need a mature debate about how to respond with prudence and compassion to this crisis. Yet we also have an obligation to expose the intellectually and morally bankrupt arguments that cascade unceasingly from the mouth of this president.

Given that Obama’s strategy is incoherent and will not work at achieving a specific goal, whether that goal is stopping ISIS or removing Assad, American voters should consider the three alternative options proposed at Brookings on November 16.