Author Archives: Daniel Larison
About Daniel Larison
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter.
The Trump administration seems to think that the only reason to meet with representatives of other governments is to dictate terms to them.
The preference for all-or-nothing posturing from many of our political leaders has made U.S. diplomacy much less effective.
The U.S. should respect the preference of a large majority of the people living in the allied country that has the most at stake in a conflict with North Korea.
There is something about dealing with “rogue” states that causes people in our government to shut off their ability to reason.
The Saudis and their allies continue escape censure for their well-documented and severe crimes in Yemen.
If North Korea has to make major concessions as a condition for beginning a “meaningful dialogue,” that guarantees that there will be no dialogue of any kind.
Haley ignores the far more numerous and egregious violations of international law by the Saudis and their allies.
“Illiberal hegemony” is the worst of both worlds.
Trump’s military parade: toy soldiers made large-as-life. Andrew Bacevich criticizes Trump’s desire …
There is no security threat comparable to the Soviet Union today that would begin to justify spending more than at the height of the Reagan build-up.
Utah would be be better represented by a local politician, and it would also be better-served by someone who hasn’t made a political career out of being an opportunistic fraud.
If the U.S. and its allies hope to get anywhere with negotiating limits on either of these programs, they are going to have to accept that the programs themselves aren’t going to disappear.
If U.S. officials just want to deliver an ultimatum in person to North Korean officials, it is a pointless exercise.
Everyone in Washington was so desperate to have the generals rein in Trump that most of them never thought through what it meant for Trump to be the military’s unthinking yes-man.
Our wars are usually wars of choice fought for reasons unrelated to defending ourselves or the nations we are obliged by treaty to protect.
It is deeply irresponsible fear-mongering on the part of the Trump administration to make this claim.
If North Korea’s willingness to agree to something it has repeatedly said it will never do is the condition for beginning talks, the U.S. is guaranteeing that there will never be any talks.
For many policymakers and pundits, it is politically safer and easier to endorse a policy goal that can’t be achieved because it is considered “tough.”
The crown prince’s rapid rise is a warning to the U.S. that it needs to disentangle itself from the noxious Saudi relationship as soon as possible.
If McMaster and other officials in the White House take for granted that North Korea is undeterrable and a major war is inevitable, they might actually believe that it is better to start the war sooner.← Older posts
from The American Conservative