"Good foreign-policy outcomes are more likely when the president oversees a coherent national-security strategy, where ends are aligned with means, words are aligned with actions, and regional responses are aligned with one another according to a worthwhile overall purpose."
"A reform conservatism on national security would therefore look to correct some of the most common foreign-policy errors of the post–Cold War era, while bolstering America’s underlying strengths overseas. It would preserve uncontested U.S. military supremacy. It would make clear distinctions between allies and adversaries, while supporting the former and resisting the latter."
“The White House isn’t only suffering from coincidentally bad news overseas. Rather, Obama’s foreign policy choices and decisions from the very start helped plant the seeds for numerous international challenges, and while he got away with it through 2012, the consequences are now coming back to haunt him – not just abroad, but politically at home.”
In Foreign Affairs, AHS speaker Colin Dueck explains why Republicans want an Anti-Interventionist, but not the Rand Paul kind:
"On the surface, it may seem that the anti-interventionist Paul has much in common with a GOP base that is increasingly wary of overseas interventions. But Paul and the Republican base have much more cause to disagree on national security than it seems at first glance."
What is the role of a National Security Advisor? Some argue that when national security advisors press for specific policy outcomes, their ability to improve the decision-making process is compromised. But AHS speaker and advisor Colin Dueck argues in Orbis that in the case of the 2006 Iraq Strategy Review, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley was able to act as an honest broker and a policy entrepreneur at the same time, connecting existing problems to alternative policy ideas. The national security advisor must be first and foremost an effective presidential agent, if he or she is to play any constructive role.