Russian flags over an American base

  President Donald Trump’s erratic policy shifts on Syria this fall have planted the seeds for new security threats to the United States and its allies—and Americans are noticing.

  The zigs and zags of Trump’s approach to Syria—announcing a full withdrawal of U.S. troops one week then sending U.S. troops back to “secure the oil” the next—opened the door to new security threats, including the revival of ISIS, a humanitarian crisis, and a continued expansion of Russia’s destructive role in Syria and the broader Middle East. In addition to these immediate concerns, there are the long-term effects that will play out for years to come, such as the doubt cast on America’s reliability as a security partner and the troubling signal that U.S. foreign policy prioritizes protecting oil over human life.

The Trump administration’s 10 most dangerous actions concerning Iran

  President Donald Trump’s erratic Iran policy has left America more isolated and less safe. In his first week in office, he alienated Iranians by banning them from America. Then he ignored the warnings of the world, nuclear experts, and his own national security team to shred a functioning nuclear agreement. For all Iran’s continued destabilizing behavior, President Trump’s actions have made America the instigator of the current crisis in the eyes of the world. He has ratcheted up tensions with no plan for success.

  Even now, there remains a serious risk that Trump and his team will blunder into a preventable and unnecessary war. Trump’s clumsy attempts at diplomacy with Iran are likely to fail—just as they have with North Korea. The chaos is obvious, and productive results are nowhere to be seen.

The American people deserve more answers on Afghanistan

  Eight months into his term, President Donald Trump is finally paying attention to the ongoing Afghanistan War, where thousands of U.S. soldiers are currently fighting. Trump’s new plan seems a lot like the old ones, with even less detail about how the war—or American involvement in it—will end.

  For 16 years, America has been fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and trying to help stabilize the country. America’s longest war has claimed the lives of more than 2,400 U.S. troops and 1,136 allied troops, with tens of thousands wounded. In addition to the loss of life, combat in Afghanistan has cost the American taxpayer an estimated $841 billion (if the fiscal year 2018 budget request is met) in defense costs alone.

Jacob G. Hornberger: Constantly shifting array of official enemies

  After George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq ended up producing ISIS, which was quickly made into a new official enemy of the United States, I am sure that there were lots of Americans saying to themselves, “Oh my gosh, another official enemy. But once we vanquish this one, it will finally be over. We will finally have peace, tranquility, and prosperity.”

  Those people were living a pipe dream. Now that ISIS has been vanquished, is the Pentagon bringing the troops home? Is there going to be a ticker-tape military parade in New York City? Is George W. Bush going to do a painting entitled “Mission Accomplished”?

Jacob G. Hornberger: Military spouses: Lead us out of the quagmire!

  For the life of me, I just can’t figure out why the American people do not rise up en masse against the forever wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan in which the United States has been embroiled for more than 15 years.

  After all, by now everyone must surely realize, despite the superficial rhetoric to the contrary, that U.S. soldiers are not over there killing and dying to defend our country or protect our freedoms here at home. They are over there killing and dying to protect the regimes the U.S. invasions and occupations put into power. That’s killing and dying for the sake of empire and interventionism, which, to belabor the obvious, is different from killing and dying for our country or to defend our freedoms.

Time to act on Russia sanctions

  On June 15, in a remarkable feat of bipartisan cooperation on a critical national security issue, the U.S. Senate passed tough Russia sanctions legislation by a stunning vote of 98-2. By taking this long overdue action, the Senate recognized clearly what the U.S. intelligence community described six months ago as Russia’s “unprecedented” attack on America’s democratic process during the 2016 elections and took the first step to a meaningful response.

Lata Nott: Why social media keeps failing us

  Was there a time when people regarded social media in a wholly positive light? It’s hard to remember. The honeymoon’s been over for a while. We still recognize the benefits of social media — after all, the majority of Americans use platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram on a daily basis — but when we talk about these companies, it’s usually not to laud them for bringing the world closer together.

  Our conversations about social media often revolve around the problems that have come with it. There are the usual laments about how these applications have ruined our ability to focus and made us all unhappier. And then there are the more serious concerns: That social media can serve as a fertile recruiting ground for terrorist organizations. That it enables, and perhaps encourages, people to broadcast themselves committing heinous acts. That it allowed for the unbridled dissemination of fake news, which may or may not have impacted the outcome of the U.S. presidential election.

Craig Ford: Time for accountability

  The election is over and now the real work begins. Part of that work means holding our leaders accountable for their promises and commitments, and both sides of the aisle have plenty to be held accountable for.

  Republicans now have absolute power across all branches of our federal and state government. Republicans have not had this much power since Reconstruction after the Civil War. We have a new president who has promised sweeping changes, and there is no one to stand in his way.

  Americans were clear when they voted that they want change. If change does not come, it will be because Republicans have failed to deliver.

Gene Policinski: Sometimes, it would seem, artificial intelligence… isn’t

  As we hurtle through the innovative and endlessly updated second decade of the 21st century, the prospects seem brighter and better than ever that our new web and social media tools will help us better communicate and more effectively confront serious challenges like terrorism.

  But then, there are the reminders that the Algorithmic Age is still in its infancy and that all the programming in the virtual world sometimes falls short of good old people brainpower. And therein are the early warning signs that tech companies need to take in consideration of free expression rights into the inevitable — and perhaps even desirable — tilt toward AI over human “editors” controlling the flow of information.

Jacob G. Hornberger: What if ISIS were to win?

  For the past few years, the American people have been exhorted by the U.S. national-security state to be obsessed with ISIS, the brutal organization that is fighting to achieve political power in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, the three countries that, not coincidentally, have been targets of regime change by the U.S. national-security state.

  Today, ISIS is constantly on the minds of millions of Americans. “We have to stop ISIS!” the battlecry goes. “We have to stop them from winning.”

  So, today, more than 10 years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there are almost 5,000 U.S. troops back in Iraq. Their mission? To stop ISIS from winning in Iraq.

Edwin J. Feulner: Defeating the next strain of terrorism

  It's been only 15 years since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. But when you look at how the terrorist threat has evolved since then, it seems as if a century or more has gone by.

  Things have been changing — fast. And if our response doesn't change, and just as quickly, we're practically begging for trouble. Not another Sept. 11, necessarily — but another Orlando. Another Fort Hood. Another San Bernardino.

  Indeed, the sheer magnitude of Sept. 11 can almost blind us to the metastasizing danger out there. Most people are aware, of course, that attacks such as the one in Orlando have occurred, and that the attacker had terrorist connections. Few people are aware that Orlando was the 86th plot of Islamist terror in the United States since Sept. 11.

Sanam Malik: When public figures normalize hate

  In the wake of the tragic attacks in Brussels last week, innocent American Muslims faced increased Islamophobic sentiments even before the Islamic State claimed responsibility. Conservative public figures—both in media and government—used the terrorist attacks as an opportunity to express anti-Muslim bigotry and fears, even asking for surveillance and torture of Muslims. Racism is and has always been an ugly reality of American history with enduring and damaging effects for us all. But when public figures in influential positions appeal to hate, something particularly pernicious occurs: They legitimize socially unacceptable behavior and normalize hate, thereby encouraging violence.

Charles C. Haynes: In 2016, genocide is taking place and it must end

  The New Year begins, mass killings continue, and the United States government has yet to declare what is happening in Iraq and Syria “genocide.”

  By now, the evidence is overwhelming: ISIS is systematically eradicating Yazidis, Christians, Shia Muslims and other ethnic and religious minorities in territories controlled by the terrorist group.

  What’s at stake is more than a question of semantics: A declaration of genocide has significant legal and moral implications that would require the United States – and likeminded countries – to do whatever it takes to rescue the refugees and end the killing.

Gene Policinski: Closing down ‘Free Speech’ is no joking matter

  If this were a joke, it would have to start out: “So, three censors walk into a bar….”

  Except that it’s no joking matter when the trio calling for private or public censoring of the Internet include the two leading candidates (at this moment) for leader of the Free World, and the head of the largest search engine and information company on the planet.

Charles C. Haynes: Fear and loathing in America

  On December 7 – a day that already lives in infamy – Donald Trump called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

  Trump’s outrageous, un-American and unconstitutional proposal is the latest escalation of his ongoing campaign to demonize Islam and Muslims. He has already informed us that, if elected, he will consider closing mosques and registering American Muslims.

  With this latest attack on Muslims, Donald Trump has inspired a rare unity among leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties.

Ken Gude: Anti-Muslim sentiment is a serious threat to American security

  The incredible barbarism perpetrated by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, too often dissuades those in the West from any meaningful assessment of the group’s strategy and tactics. From beheading or burning alive captives to slaughtering entire minority populations and gunning down innocent civilians in previously quiet streets, the violence is incomprehensible and thus can appear devoid of reason or planning. That is far from the truth. ISIS has been very clear about its objectives. It uses violence to achieve its goals, including to spread fear and induce governments and the public to make choices they otherwise would not; to mobilize its supporters with demonstrations of its capabilities; and, most importantly, to provoke an anti-Muslim backlash to help it attract new followers and prepare for a clash of civilizations. The ignorance of most in Western society to ISIS’s clear and openly described objectives is providing the necessary fuel for their continued growth and momentum.

Charles C. Haynes: Muslims, refugees, and the struggle for the soul of America

  The horrific terrorist attacks of recent weeks have brought out the worst – and the best – in the American character.

  First, the worst: Attacks on Muslims have spiked significantly across the country. A number of American Muslims have been assaulted, including a pregnant woman in San Diego. Others have been harassed and intimidated. At least seven mosques have been vandalized, shot at or threatened.

  In this growing climate of fear, Syrian refugees fleeing violence and oppression have become scapegoats in the frustrating, seemingly endless war on terror.

Jacob G. Hornberger: The chaos of the “War on Terrorism” spreads to Syria

  It had to happen. It was always inevitable that the U.S. government’s much-vaunted “war on terrorism” would devolve into absolute chaos, especially by attracting authoritarian and totalitarian regimes into the “war on terrorism” maelstrom.

  Ever since President George W. Bush declared his much-ballyhooed “war on terrorism,” we have seen authoritarian and totalitarian regimes infringe on or destroy the civil liberties of their citizenry, citing the “war on terrorism” as their justification. Bashing down people’s doors in warrantless searches, arbitrary arrests, indefinite detention, torture, assassination. The war on terrorism has become a dictator’s best friend. Hey, if the U.S. government is doing it, why not every other regime in the world, including the dictatorial ones?

Charles C. Haynes: When combatting extremism, schools are the long game

  Propaganda works.

  Consider Mohammad Abdulazeez, the young man who shot and killed five service members in Chattanooga, Tennessee last week.

  According to FBI reports, Abdulazeez was inspired to “martyrdom” through listening to the hate-filled sermons of Anwar al-Awlaki, the al Qaeda recruiter killed by an American drone strike in 2011.

  Or consider Dylann Roof, the suspect in the murder of nine African American churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina earlier this summer.

James Phillips: ISIS vs. Al Qaeda: The good news and the bad news

  The Islamic State, formerly known as ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), has become a bitter rival of Al Qaeda, its parent organization. Its leaders represent a new generation of Islamist militants who have broken with Al Qaeda in a power struggle over Syria and the future of the global Islamist revolution.

  Both groups share the same ultimate goal: the establishment of a global caliphate, to be ruled under a harsh brand of sharia (Islamic law). But they clash over what strategy and tactics are best, as well as who should lead the global jihad (holy war) to build the caliphate.