‘Poison parity’: hawks demand equal boosts for non-defense and military spending
Beware of another year in which politics wins over strategy and the security budget is bloated in all the wrong places.
Beware of another year in which politics wins over strategy and the security budget is bloated in all the wrong places.
After 10 years of winking and nodding, the new Congress is close to lifting the ban on defense carve-outs for members.
Bipartisan momentum is again building to repeal the 2002 AUMF; will the Defense Department stand in the way?
The last four years have given us a real-life lesson in presidentialism run amok. It didn’t start with Trump but it can end with him.
Reps. Barbara Lee and Betty McCollum just took over two key sub-committees focused on foreign policy and defense spending.
The 2001 AUMF must not only be repealed, but Congress and the president must also reassess US counterterrorism strategy.
A loophole in the proposed fund, which the House passed in July, would allow Israeli settlers to reap most of the benefits.
The Pentagon has more than it needs should it need to check China, but there’s a bipartisan push in Congress for more.
Congress’s work should include continuing the investigations the IGs were not able to complete, one of many overdue steps for it to reassert itself as a coequal branch in foreign policy.
Congress should continually remind Trump that the American people don’t want a war with Iran.
Curtailing U.S. militarism is popular. Maybe it’s time to tackle the Pentagon’s budget too.
The past almost 20 years provide good evidence that our bomb-first-ask-hard-questions-never approach to violence and security challenges has not made us or the world safer.