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.
No matter which way Scotland votes this week, U.S. interests won’t be significantly harmed.
One side in the independence debate is clearly rejecting at least one kind of military intervention.
Nothing could be easier to understand than for people to try getting more control over how (and by whom) they are governed.
Most Americans don’t want the U.S. backing Israel to the hilt.
What Scottish independence would (and wouldn’t) mean. Angus Roxburgh reflects on what …
Promoting the cause of restraint and peace.
Cruz’s behavior was unnecessary, needlessly provocative, and an embarrassment to his voters.
Escalation was almost certain to happen, so why weren’t more people skeptical about the “limited” intervention in Iraq?
The U.S. is fighting a new, open-ended war for the sake of “partners” that are contributing little or nothing to the war.
The president doesn’t have the authority that he pretends to have.
The threat from ISIS to the United States has been greatly exaggerated.
There are few policies less morally defensible than setting up another nation to suffer an even worse defeat.
Policing the world for decades to come is unacceptable and unsustainable.
Unless Israel wants to guarantee that Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it won’t attack Iran.
It would be good for the country if he ran against Clinton, but there are no incentives for him to do this.
It would be shameful to encourage another country to fight a war that it can’t win simply so that we can feel better about ourselves.
It takes an ideologue or a con-man (or both) to look at the modern world and conclude that we are reliving the 1930s.
Any war with the maximalist goal of “destroying” an enemy will always be longer and more costly than we realize now.
The U.K. may soon be dissolved because unionists don’t have the first clue how to argue their case effectively.
A way out for Ukraine and Russia. Anatol Lieven outlines how the …← Older posts
from The American Conservative