"The United States must be realistic about what a democracy must do to demonstrate its ability to defend itself and must stop the flights of fancy that have led to a current de facto arms-sales freeze. This sort of policy would serve U.S. interests and may even be realistic."
In the Washington Post, AHS speaker and Georgetown Professor Robert Lieber questions whether polarization in domestic politics affects foreign policy:
"With the passage of time, and especially if results fall short of initial expectations, party differences over foreign policy tend to widen, both because of disagreements over the issues at stake and as a result of elite leadership. In today’s polarized climate, politics can be delayed at the water’s edge, but it certainly doesn’t stop for long."
In Foreign Policy, AHS speaker Michael Rubin discusses why "sports diplomacy" and the Olympics don't actually advance peace:
"Amid the controversy over the Russian government's crackdown on gays and against the backdrop of threats by al-Qaida-affiliated groups, the Olympic Charter's promise to "place sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity," seems increasingly tenuous."
"President Barack Obama's disastrous retreat on Syria last year has elicited a new wave of punditry at home and abroad about American war-weariness and neo-isolationism -- a thesis unhelpfully advanced by the administration's own defensive description of its foreign policy."
In Foreign Policy, AHS speaker Peter Feaver questions whether military officers speak out too much:
"This public role is tricky. The military must be wary lest it find itself carrying political water for an administration unwilling or unable to defend its own policies. The military also must speak without subverting the chain of command and the integrity of the internal policymaking process. That means that the military must be careful not to speak with the intention of mobilizing public opinion against administration policy; that was the line that Fallon crossed."
"A Middle East policy built around shoring up Jordan and then other countries that are making the right kinds of domestic and international choices would go a long way in giving America's allies in the region a higher degree of confidence that the United States isn't turning its back on them."
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."