Last night's debaters gave the ongoing events in the Middle East short shrift. But major developments offer both testimony to citizens' desire for freedom and dignity and the need for strong, unified diplomacy in service of U.S. interests and values. In recent weeks, we've seen a violent military crackdown on demonstrations in Egypt, new censure of Syria's President Bashar Assad and a new report on violence in Bahrain. The Arab League, U.S. and other partners succeeded in passing a UN resolution calling for an end to violence in Syria. Regional player Turkey called for Assad to step down. In Egypt, the military government's pledge to step down next summer failed to quell protests in Tahrir Square, which raged into a fifth day. In Bahrain, clashes between protestors and security forces preceded a report on last year's violence. The report, written by the Bahrain Independent Commission, details torture and excessive force but tamps down claims about Iranian meddling. And in Yemen, longtime President Ali Abdullah Saleh agreed to a plan negotiated by Gulf countries to step down from power.

More »

Tonight the 2012 presidential hopefuls convene again to debate foreign policy and national security issues.  Democracy in Egypt, defense spending, financial meltdown in Europe - the news is full of challenges to U.S. interests and to governments' very ability to meet their citizens' basic needs.  But, as commentators from conservatives Marc Thiessen and George Will to the New York Times Editorial Board have noted, the debate is unlikely to produce new wisdom on  America's role in the world or how to best keep Americans safe and prosperous in the 21^st century. Following recent patterns, we can expect instead reflexive attacks on the Obama administration as well as a return to the neoconservative framework that defined the Bush administration, thanks to the presences of many of its architects among the candidates' advisors.

More »

This year's congressional debate on the foreign aid budget has brought out an unprecedented coalition of former secretaries of state, senior military commanders and Pentagon officials to argue that, especially in tough economic times, investments in civilian foreign affairs capacity are among the most cost-effective we can make. As five former secretaries of state representing both parties wrote this week, and military leaders of all branches have emphasized, America should continue to fund foreign aid -- not just for the political, economic and moral benefits, but for the strategic and security benefits. Funding the civilian tools of power is not only necessary for winning today's wars, as General David Petraeus has noted; it also helps prevent future conflict and avoid the need for costly military action.

More »

As Republican candidates for president debated foreign policy in Spartanburg, South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) laid down lines of attack in the conservative National Review. Many of his attacks were echoed on Saturday by the candidates, who used the piece as a sort of playbook to fill in for a lack of experience and ideas in the field. Missing, in the debate and the article, was strategic thinking - China, for example, is mentioned only once in the piece, in relation to sanctions on Iran - as well as an understanding of the connection between the foundations of our strength at home and our power abroad. Also missing was awareness of how extreme conservative views clash with the advice of military leaders and nonpartisan national security experts. When Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN), for example, was asked about her support for torture techniques that our military opposes, she said: "I'm on the same side as Vice President Cheney on this issue" and against Colin Powell and John McCain. Below, NSN explores how the topics covered in Graham's article stack up against expert advice. Graham's words are in italics.

More »

This Saturday, conservative candidates for president will debate national security and foreign policy in Spartanburg, South Carolina. So far those vying for the nomination have given few specifics about how they view the world beyond America's shores. As conservative columnist George Will wrote last week, "the candidates have some explaining to do." With two wars still winding down and the European economic crisis threatening the U.S., Americans need to know how the men and women who want to be America's commander-in-chief would deal with the rest of the world. Citizens need to know what they see as the chief external challenges to America and how they would shape our civilian, economic and military institutions to respond. The National Security Network has put together this list of questions for the eight contenders who will be taking the stage:

More »

THE TUMULT OF THE LAST YEAR reminds us that the president is not only legislator-in-chief and chief executive. He or she is also commander-in-chief, head of state and lead diplomat. Those roles require a facility with the complexity of world affairs, a vision for America's role in the world that squares with global realities and a capacity to exert leadership that advances our national interest.

More »