The atrocity demands a response, but will the President favour international diplomacy or military action?
It’s one thing to recognise the long-term threats posed by states such as Russia, quite another to meet them.
Then as now, the United Kingdom is undermining its reputation and interests abroad by supporting an ally engaged in war crimes.
If the EU is serious about abolishing the idea of a ‘second-class Europe’ – which is the product of 20th Century occupations – it must support us too.
A president who is quick to attack friends and allies needs to bring other world leaders into his coalition.
Unless we know our role in the world, we cannot have a strategy. And without a strategy, we cannot suitably design our armed forces.
The way in which the 0.7 per cent target is defined is out of date. Lack of money is not necessarily the primary cause of underdevelopment.
The Labour leader pledged “change at home and abroad” would reduce the threat of terrorism.
One virtue of democracy is that it does not give special prominence to the loudest people in judging the mood of a crowd.
Action must go beyond ISIS to prevent other, similarly-minded, jihadist groups prospering.
Since the strike on Syria, Bannon’s influence is waning while Kushner’s waxes.
Obama’s desperate and impotent decision to abandon the Middle East to the Russians is being overturned. Not before time.
The halcyon days of Charles Kennedy’s leadership offer a clear temptation to revert to the party’s old opportunist ways. Will their new, more governmental habits stick?
Not only are we helping the Kingdom achieve important domestic reforms, it gives us a platform to project our influence in this vital region.