Commentary
Leaning into a multispeed Europe that includes the UK is the way Europeans don’t get relegated to suffering what they must, while the mighty United States and China do what they want.
Rym Momtaz
{
"authors": [
"Denis McDonough"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "TIA",
"programs": [
"Technology and International Affairs"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"South Asia",
"Afghanistan",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Military",
"Foreign Policy",
"Global Governance"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Can Congress Stop the Forever War?
Congress has fallen behind on meeting oversight obligation, which is to assess the fitness of officials who would represent the United States overseas in diplomatic or military capacities.
Published on Dec 17, 2018
Source: Foreign Affairs
When the 116th Congress—including a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives—is sworn into office in a few weeks, there will be no shortage of pressing issues demanding the attention of legislators. These include perhaps the most solemn question facing any government: when and how to deploy the awesome power of the United States armed forces.
Few matters are as complex or as consequential. And Congress should not be shy. The Constitution grants competing powers in the realm of foreign affairs to Congress and the president, with the expectation—even the demand—of aggressive oversight. Having served at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, I understand that many in the White House will see this congressional role as a nuisance. But they would be well advised to welcome it, because a full partnership with Congress on national security matters will improve both the policies and their execution, while also beginning to restore the American people’s trust in Washington.
The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has sorely lacked any such oversight in its first two years. Two recent news stories highlight the need for congressional investigations into matters affecting Americans overseas. One tells us that accountability for the deadly ambush in 2017 of U.S. troops in Niger is still a matter of dispute. And the other reports that the Army National Guard—apparently prompted by an article in The New York Times—is conducting its own investigation into whether a unit deployed to Afghanistan was appropriately trained and outfitted after its request for specific equipment had gone unmet.
Congress has fallen behind on meeting even its most basic oversight obligation, which is to assess the fitness of officials who would represent the United States overseas in diplomatic or military capacities. According to The Washington Post and the Partnership for
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- To Survive, the EU Must Split
- Escalation Dynamics Under the Nuclear Shadow—India’s ApproachPaper
An exploration into how India and Pakistan have perceived each other’s manipulations, or lack thereof, of their nuclear arsenals.
Rakesh Sood
- U.S. Peace Mediation in the Middle East: Lessons for the Gaza Peace PlanPaper
As Gaza peace negotiations take center stage, Washington should use the tools that have proven the most effective over the past decades of Middle East mediation.
Amr Hamzawy, Sarah Yerkes, Kathryn Selfe
- Russia’s Unspoken Condition for Ending the War Is Zelensky’s ResignationCommentary
Insisting on Zelensky’s resignation is not just a personal vendetta, but a clear signal that the Kremlin would like to send to all its neighbors: even if you manage to put up some resistance, you will ultimately pay the price—including on a personal level.
Vladislav Gorin
- For Putin, Increasing Russia’s Nuclear Threat Matters More Than the Triad’s ModernizationCommentary
For Putin, upgrading Russia’s nuclear forces was a secondary goal. The main aim was to gain an advantage over the West, including by strengthening the nuclear threat on all fronts. That made growth in missile arsenals and a new arms race inevitable.
Maxim Starchak
