Failure to pursue political goals in the Middle East with the same gusto as military objectives could render today’s battlefield successes against ISIS meaningless.
Amid the ongoing debate over U.S. strategy in the Middle East, Tyler Bowen responds to Chris Newton’s criticism of millennial foreign policy.
With much of the world seemingly arrayed against the Islamic State, how is the group still so powerful?
After unsuccessful nation-building enterprises in Iraq and Afghanistan, a change in military strategy may well be in order.
Although full U.S. combat operations officially ended in Afghanistan in 2014, the fight against extremism rages on.
Despite contrary claims from the US government, the actions of Kurdish Peshmerga in the conflict against ISIS suggest anything but a partnership of reliability and stability.
In the past year alone, ISIS has reportedly received over $35 million in ransoms, leading many to question the decision of some states to negotiate with terrorists in order to free kidnapped citizens.
President Obama’s recently proposed AUMF against the Islamic State is meant to serve political, not legal, ends.
New cross-border dynamics in the Middle East have led Turkey to support the Kurds in increasingly visible ways.