Liberal intellectuals and political leaders have been slow to articulate a grand strategy informed by liberal values for confronting global terrorism. This book outlines the framework of a liberal strategy, and exposes the costs of the neo-conservative alternative that has driven US foreign policy since 9/11.

Liberal intellectuals and political leaders have been slow to articulate a grand strategy informed by liberal values for confronting global terrorism. This book outlines the framework of a liberal strategy, and exposes the costs of the neo-conservative alternative that has driven US foreign policy since 9/11.

America Alone explores how George W. Bush's election, and the fear and confusion of September 11, 2001, combined to allow a small group of radical intellectuals to seize the reins of US national security policy. It shows how, at this 'inflection point' in US history an inexperienced president was persuaded to abandon his campaign pledges (and the successful consensus-driven, bi-partisan diplomacy that managed the lethal Soviet threat over the past half-century) and adopt a neo-conservative foreign policy emphasizing military confrontation and 'nation-building'. To date, the costs - in blood, money and credibility - have been great and the benefits few, with traditional conservatives deploring Bush's approach. America Alone outlines the costs in terms of economic damage, distortion of priorities, rising anti-Americanism, and reduced security. Then it sets out an alternative approach emphasizing the traditional conservative principles of containing risk, consensus diplomacy and balance of power.

Here are the best of Kristol's now famous essays on society, religion, morals, culture, literature, education, and on the values issues which have come to define the neoconservative critique of contemporary life. These essays display the provocative ideas and style that have caused Irving Kristol to be justly regarded as the "godfather" of the conservative movement.

Presents a critique of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, arguing that it stemmed from misconceptions about the realities of the situation in Iraq and a squandering of the goodwill of American allies following September 11th.

When states are threatened by war and terrorism, can we really expect them to abide by human rights and humanitarian law? David P. Forsythe's bold analysis of US policies towards terror suspects after 9/11 addresses this issue directly. Covering moral, political, and legal aspects, he examines the abuse of enemy detainees at the hands of the United States. At the center of the debate is the Bush Administration, which Forsythe argues displayed disdain for international law, in contrast to the general public's support for humanitarian affairs. Forsythe explores the similarities and differences between Presidents Obama and Bush on the question of prisoner treatment in an age of terrorism and asks how the Administration should proceed. The book traces the Pentagon's and CIA's records in mistreating prisoners, providing an account which will be of interest to all those who value human rights and humanitarian law.

Political Rationale and International Consequences of the War in Libya focuses on the international intervention in Libya in 2011, and tries to answer two broad questions; (1) What was the political rationale for the various actors to proceed as they did in the lead-up and conduct of the military intervention in Libya?, (2) What are the consequences of the UN-authorized military intervention in Libya? R2P was the public raison d'être of the war, and an important legitimizing factor of the intervention. Still, the humanitarian situation was a necessary, but not in and by itself an adequate precondition for intervention. A number of factors coalesced to enable the intervention. While the humanitarian situation triggered the intervention, in reality a variety of national interests governed the approach by the various international actors, and more often than not, these motives were not rooted in the particular circumstances in Libya. The book offers a combination of unique perspectives. While the perspectives of the US, France, and the UK on the Libyan Crisis/War have been well documented, the Arabic and Scandinavian political and military dynamics have been much less so. While the perspectives of NATO, the UN, and R2P have been debated, the view from the Arab League and African Union (AU) have been less in focus. The volume redresses that imbalance and offers the most broad-ranging analysis yet of a key moment in recent international relations.