Deep divisions at home about the nature of the United States' engagement with the world threaten to produce failed leadership abroad -- and possibly isolationism. To steady U.S. global leadership and restore consensus to U.S. foreign policy, U.S. commitments overseas must be scaled back to a more politically sustainable level.
With presidential politics already coloring all aspects of international policymaking, CFR.org launches Campaign 2008 to track the tangle of foreign policy and national security issues throughout the election cycle.
In Prospect magazine, Edward Luttwak argues that the rest of the world should stop paying so much attention to the modern Middle East -- unless compelled by immediate danger. Most of the stated reasons for concern are either vastly exaggerated or flatly false.
Professor Daniel Drezner discusses his March/April 2007 Foreign Affairs arguing that controversies over the war in Iraq and U.S. unilateralism have overshadowed a more pragmatic and multilateral component of the Bush administration’s grand strategy.
U.S. policy toward Africa under President Bush has stressed development and humanitarian aid. But recent U.S. military action in Somalia raises the specter of a more intrusive approach, particularly in the Horn of Africa. Is it a harbinger of things to come?
The Council on Foreign Relations' David Rockefeller Studies Program—CFR's "think tank"—is home to more than seventy full-time, adjunct, and visiting scholars and practitioners (called "fellows"). Their expertise covers the world's major regions as well as the critical issues shaping today's global agenda. Download the printable CFR Experts Guide.
The author examines Pakistan's complex role in U.S. foreign policy and advocates for a two-pronged approach that works to quarantine threats while integrating Pakistan into the broader U.S. agenda in Asia.