Outside the Beltway

President Obama is reportedly considering a plan that would put American forces much closer to the ground war in the war against ISIS.

The U.S. and Russia have reached a much-needed deal to avoid inadvertent confrontations over the skies of Syria.

In the wake of failure that could have been easily foreseen, the Obama Administration is ending a program to train so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels.

With Russia now launching its own airstrikes in Syria, it’s become obvious that U.S. policy in the Syrian Civil War is irrational and contradictory. And Russia’s policy isn’t any better.

With the exception of Rand Paul, the foreign policy discussion at last night’s debate was about as bad as you’d expect.

ISIS apparently now has a foothold in Libya, and is making inroads in Yemen.

So far at least, the air strikes against Islamic State positions in Syria do not seem to be having much of an impact.

The Khorasan Group is, functionally, al Qaeda. Or is it?

President Obama has opened a new front in his “war” against ISIS

Iran and the United States are on the same side in the fight against ISIS, whether they like it or not.

A new poll suggests that Hillary Clinton’s record as Secretary of State doesn’t impress voters as much as she might hope.

For some reason, President Obama wants to arm so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels.

Is ISIS about to make the situation in the Levant even worse?

If President Obama does decide to use military force in Iraq, he should be required to seek Congressional approval beforehand.

Iraq’s Prime Minister seems to be responding to the uprising in his country in a way guaranteed to make it worse.

The removal of chemical weapons from Syria is nearly complete. Does Obama deserve credit for that?

Barack Obama is no Jimmy Carter.

Not surprisingly, Time’s editors chose Pope Francis as Person Of The Year. However, Edward Snowden arguably would have been the better choice.

Even before the Russian curve ball, the public opposition to military strikes on Syria was mounting.

Opposing interventionism and unnecessary and unwise military engagements is not isolationism.

f Assad is eating Cheerios, we’re going to take away his spoon and give him a fork.

Things aren’t looking good for President Obama in the House of Representatives.

President Obama seems to have forgotten the words of a certain Illinois State Senator back in 2002.

A proposed Syria authorization being considered in the Senate places several limits on Presidential authority to act, but it’s unclear if those limits can actually work.

Score one for Team Bush?

Some questions that the Administration needs to answer before attacking Syria.

The White House confirmed today that the goal of any military intervention in Syria would be very limited. Which makes one wonder what the point of doing anything actually is.

We’re almost certainly going to launch punitive strikes against Syria. They’ll almost certainly be ineffective.

Western military action in the Syrian civil war now appears likely.

Two polls indicate that most Americans oppose the President’s latest moves on Syria. This makes sense considering actual policy there seems to be entirely incoherent.

The U.S. is now confirming that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. What’s next?

How would the addition of Susan Rice and Samantha Power to the President’s foreign policy team affect policy toward Syria’s civil war?

The infamous “red line” may not have been crossed after all. At least not by the Assad regime.

Arming the Syrian rebels may do nothing more than prolong a seemingly endless war, and pull the United States into a conflict it shouldn’t be involved in.

John McCain is right that we shouldn’t send ground troops to Syria, but his idea for increased U.S. intervention in the country’s civil war is still too risky.

Recent comments from Russian officials suggest that the nation may be preparing to cut its longtime ally loose.