War and Foreign Policy

Why did the South lose the Civil War? Mark Thornton argues Vicksburg—not Gettysburg—was key, revealing how Confederate economic failures sealed their fate.

Hunt Tooley reveals how artillery, arms dealers, and bankers turned war into profitable, prolonged carnage.

Scott Horton explains how US foreign policy disasters threaten peace, prosperity, and freedom.

Tom DiLorenzo exposes the dangerous "Treasury of Virtue" that justifies endless wars and imperialism.

Ilana Mercer addresses Israel’s "Hasbara" myths, exposing harsh truths behind Gaza’s suffering—and the moral complicity of America in enabling atrocities.

There are no “good wars,” rather, there are wars with varying degrees of destructiveness. The American War Between the States was especially destructive, and the scars have not fully healed 160 years after it ended.

Peterson implies the “dark tetrad” is emerging on the non-interventionist right, cloaking their real intentions with conservative rhetoric. Interestingly, however, a historical parallel exists in neoconservatism, whose intellectual roots are deeply rooted in Machiavellianism.

Edwin S. Corwin in The President: Office and Powers, 1878-1957 has argued that the Constitution is a tussle for control between the executive and legislature. It is, he claims, “an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy.”

A past article, presenting a “libertarian” viewpoint of nuclear weapons, has two choices, but pointedly leaves out a third choice: nuclear disarmament. According to Murray Rothbard, disarmament is the only true moral choice and also the most practical.

The first 100 days of the second Trump administration have made it clear that those who want the foreign policy status quo to continue are serious about doing what it takes to accomplish their goals, while those who want to change it are not.