From Allies to Victories: How the Republican Party’s Patience Shaped Middle East Policy.

By. Sherzad MamSani
The intricate and volatile landscape of the Middle East has long captivated the attention of global powers, with its complex web of historical, cultural, and geopolitical dynamics. Among the actors involved, the Republican Party of the United States has played a pivotal role in shaping the country’s Middle East policy for several decades. Through a combination of strategic patience, calculated alliances, and a vision for regional stability, the Republican Party has left an indelible mark on the Middle East’s political landscape.
This article delves into the transformation of the Republican Party’s approach towards the Middle East, tracing its evolution from the days of traditional alliances to the pursuit of victories in the region. By examining key events and policies, we will uncover the party’s nuanced strategy and how it has influenced the United States’ engagement in this crucial part of the world.
The Republican Party’s Middle East policy has not been a static entity. It has undergone significant shifts in response to changing global dynamics and emerging threats. While previous Republican administrations had prioritized maintaining alliances with regional powers, recent years have witnessed a paradigm shift, as the party embraced a more proactive and assertive stance.
To understand the factors that have shaped the Republican Party’s Middle East policy, we must delve into the realm of historical context. The United States’ involvement in the Middle East dates back to the early 20th century when it became increasingly interested in safeguarding its geopolitical and economic interests in the region. Throughout the Cold War era, the Republican Party played a crucial role in countering Soviet influence by cultivating strategic partnerships with countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Egypt.
However, the turn of the 21st century brought forth a new set of challenges for the United States. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, prompted a seismic shift in American foreign policy, leading to the initiation of the War on Terror. This marked a turning point for the Republican Party, as it grappled with the complexities of combating terrorism while striving to maintain regional stability.
As the United States became entangled in protracted conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Republican Party’s patience was tested. The quest for victories in these war-torn nations became paramount, as the party sought to establish democratic governance and quell insurgencies. The Middle East policy of the Republican Party evolved from one of containment and balance to an active pursuit of military victories, driven by a desire to secure American interests and promote stability in the region.
Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who served under the Republican administration of President George W. Bush, highlighted the party’s shift in strategy during a speech in 2003. She stated, “We have learned that to protect our interests and to promote democracy, we must not only have strong allies but also the willingness to act decisively when necessary. This is the key to shaping the Middle East.”
Throughout this article, we will explore the key milestones that defined the Republican Party’s approach in the Middle East, such as the Iraq War, the Arab Spring, and the rise of ISIS. These events showcased the party’s commitment to achieving victories while facing the challenges of nation-building, sectarian tensions, and the pursuit of stability in the region.
Senator John McCain, a prominent Republican figure known for his expertise in foreign policy, voiced his support for a more assertive approach in the Middle East. He argued that strategic patience alone was not enough, stating, “We cannot afford to stand by and watch as radical forces gain ground in the Middle East. We must confront them head-on and support those who share our values of democracy and freedom.”
further elaborate on the Republican Party’s Middle East policy:
1. The Iraq War: The Republican Party’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 under the leadership of President George W. Bush marked a significant turning point in the party’s approach. The invasion, justified by the belief that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, aimed to remove Saddam Hussein’s regime and establish a democratic government. The war, however, proved to be more protracted and challenging than anticipated, leading to debates over the party’s strategy and the long-term consequences of the intervention.
2. The Arab Spring: The series of uprisings that swept across the Middle East and North Africa in 2011, known as the Arab Spring, presented both opportunities and challenges for the Republican Party’s Middle East policy. As popular movements called for democratic reforms and regime change, the party faced the question of how to navigate the evolving political landscape. Some Republican politicians, such as Senator Marco Rubio, expressed cautious optimism about the potential for democratic transformation, while others raised concerns about the rise of extremist groups and the destabilizing effects of regime change.
3. Countering the Rise of ISIS: The emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in 2014 posed a significant threat to regional stability and U.S. national security. The Republican Party, particularly during the Obama administration, criticized the handling of the ISIS threat and called for a more aggressive response. Republican lawmakers, including Senator Lindsey Graham, advocated for increased military engagement and the deployment of ground troops to combat the terrorist group.
4. Shifts in Alliances: The Republican Party’s Middle East policy also witnessed shifts in alliances. While maintaining longstanding partnerships with countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel, the party also sought to cultivate new alliances with nations such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. These alliances were often driven by shared concerns about Iran’s regional influence and the need for a unified front against common threats.
5. The Iran Nuclear Deal: The Republican Party took a firm stance against the Iran Nuclear Deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was negotiated during the Obama administration. Republicans argued that the deal did not do enough to address Iran’s support for terrorism and its ballistic missile program, and they sought a more assertive approach towards Iran’s regional activities.
🔺The American Republican Party has had a significant impact on the Israeli-Arab conflict, demonstrating both successes and employing strategic patience in its approach. Here are some key points to consider:
1. Peace Treaties: Republican administrations have played a crucial role in facilitating peace treaties between Israel and its Arab neighbors. The most notable achievement was the Camp David Accords in 1978, brokered by President Jimmy Carter, which led to a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. The treaty marked the first-ever agreement between Israel and an Arab state, solidifying Egypt’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist and establishing diplomatic and economic relations between the two countries. The Republican Party has supported and built upon this achievement, advocating for further peace agreements.
2. Strategic Alliance with Israel: The Republican Party has consistently demonstrated strong support for Israel, forging a strategic alliance based on shared values and interests. This support has been manifested through increased military aid, diplomatic backing, and close cooperation in areas such as intelligence sharing and defense technology. Republican administrations, including those of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump, have reinforced this alliance, enhancing Israel’s security and bolstering its position in the region.
3. Jerusalem Recognition: The Republican Party, under President Donald Trump, took the significant step of recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and relocating the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. This move was celebrated by Israel and its supporters as a recognition of its historical and political significance. It was seen as a testament to the Republican Party’s unwavering support for Israel and its commitment to fulfilling campaign promises.
4. Opposition to Palestinian Authority Funding: The Republican Party has adopted a critical stance on providing financial aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Concerns over the PA’s support for terrorism, incitement, and lack of progress in peace negotiations have led Republican politicians to call for cutting or conditioning aid. This approach has reflected the party’s insistence on accountability and a firm stance against those perceived as hindering the peace process.
6. Strategic Patience: The Republican Party has demonstrated strategic patience in the Israeli-Arab conflict, recognizing the complex and deeply entrenched nature of the issues at hand. Rather than rushing into hasty solutions, the party has emphasized the importance of incremental progress and building trust between the parties involved. This patient approach has been aimed at fostering a sustainable peace that addresses the concerns and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
🔺 The American Republican Party has pursued confrontations against terrorists and Iran, exhibiting successes and employing strategic patience in these endeavors. Here are some key points to consider:
1. Counterterrorism Efforts: The Republican Party has consistently advocated for robust counterterrorism measures, particularly in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Under Republican administrations, such as those of Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump, the United States intensified its efforts to combat terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaeda and ISIS, through military operations, intelligence gathering, and international cooperation. These efforts resulted in significant successes, including the elimination of key terrorist leaders and the degradation of terrorist networks.
2. Strategic Patience in the War on Terror: The Republican Party has displayed strategic patience in the context of the war on terror. Recognizing the protracted and complex nature of the fight against terrorism, the party has emphasized the need for long-term commitment and a comprehensive approach that encompasses military, diplomatic, economic, and ideological dimensions. While progress has been made in disrupting terrorist networks, the Republican Party acknowledges that eradicating terrorism entirely requires sustained efforts and adaptability to evolving threats.
3. Iran’s Nuclear Program: The Republican Party has taken a firm stance against Iran’s nuclear program, expressing concerns about the potential for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and the destabilizing impact this would have on the Middle East. Republican politicians have called for strict sanctions on Iran, emphasizing the need to curtail its nuclear ambitions and hold the Iranian regime accountable for its actions. Under Republican leadership, the United States withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) in 2018, advocating for a more stringent approach to address Iran’s nuclear activities.
4. Confronting Iranian Influence: The Republican Party has been proactive in countering Iranian influence in the Middle East. It has supported regional allies, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states, in their efforts to contain and counter Iran’s regional activities. This includes providing military assistance, bolstering defense cooperation, and implementing economic sanctions against Iranian entities involved in destabilizing actions.
5. Strategic Approach to Iran: The Republican Party has demonstrated strategic patience in its approach to Iran, recognizing the complexities and risks associated with direct confrontation. While advocating for a firm stance against Iran’s aggressive behavior, the party has emphasized the importance of a comprehensive strategy that includes diplomatic channels, economic pressure, and coordinated actions with international partners. This approach aims to contain Iran’s influence, address its malign activities, and encourage behavioral changes through a combination of deterrence and incentives.
🔺 The American Republican Party has been critical of the expansion of the Muslim Brotherhood and has pursued confrontations against its influence, exhibiting successes and employing strategic patience in these endeavors. Here are some key points to consider:
1. Opposition to Muslim Brotherhood Influence: The Republican Party has consistently expressed concerns about the ideology and activities of the Muslim Brotherhood, both domestically and internationally. Republicans have argued that the group’s ideology, which seeks to establish political Islam, conflicts with democratic values and poses a threat to stability in the Middle East and beyond. Republican politicians have raised awareness about the Brotherhood’s role in supporting extremism and have called for measures to counter its influence.
2. Strategic Patience in Addressing the Issue: The Republican Party has displayed strategic patience in confronting the expansion of the Muslim Brotherhood. Recognizing the complexities of the issue and the need to balance security concerns with respect for individual freedoms, the party has advocated for a comprehensive and long-term approach. This approach involves strengthening democratic institutions, supporting moderate Muslim voices, and engaging in dialogue to counter the Brotherhood’s narrative and ideology.
3. Engaging Regional Allies: The Republican Party has emphasized the importance of working with regional allies to confront the expansion of the Muslim Brotherhood. This includes countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, which have actively opposed the group and taken measures to curb its influence. The Republican Party has supported these allies in their efforts and advocated for increased cooperation to counter the Brotherhood’s activities.
4. Legislation and Policy Initiatives: Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation and policy initiatives aimed at countering the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. For example, in 2017, the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act was introduced in Congress, seeking to designate the group as a foreign terrorist organization. While the bill did not pass, it underscored the party’s commitment to addressing the issue and raised awareness about the concerns associated with the Brotherhood’s activities.
5. Promoting Regional Stability: The Republican Party’s confrontations against the expansion of the Muslim Brotherhood have been driven by a broader objective of promoting regional stability. By countering the influence of the Brotherhood, the party seeks to support governments that uphold democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law. It aims to prevent the destabilizing effects that the Brotherhood’s activities could have on the region and its potential to undermine U.S. interests and security.
🔺 The American Republican Party and the Kurdish issue in the Middle East.
1. Iraq: The Republican Party has generally been supportive of the Kurdish regional government in Iraq. Following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Kurds emerged as a key ally of the United States. Republicans, along with Democrats, recognized the need to build a stable and democratic Iraq that respects the rights of all ethnic and religious groups, including the Kurds. The Republican-led administration of George W. Bush provided military and financial support to the Kurdish Peshmerga forces, aiding their fight against ISIS in recent years.
2. Iran: The Republican Party has taken a tough stance against the Iranian government, which has significant implications for the Kurdish cause in Iran. While the party has not explicitly supported Kurdish separatism within Iran, it has been critical of the Iranian regime’s treatment of ethnic and religious minorities, including the Kurds. Republican politicians have advocated for a more assertive U.S. foreign policy towards Iran, including economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure, which indirectly benefits various opposition groups within Iran, including Kurdish organizations.
3. Turkey: The Republican Party has maintained a complex relationship with Turkey, a NATO ally, where the Kurdish issue is most contentious. Historically, the U.S. has supported Turkey as a strategic partner in the region. However, Republicans have criticized the Turkish government’s treatment of the Kurdish population, particularly the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which Turkey considers a terrorist organization. Some Republican lawmakers have pushed for stronger U.S. support for the Kurdish forces fighting against ISIS in Syria, which often puts them at odds with Turkey. However, the Republican Party has also taken into account the broader U.S.-Turkey relationship and the importance of cooperation on other regional issues.
4. Syria: In the Syrian context, the Republican Party has shown support for the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in their fight against ISIS. During the Trump administration, the U.S. provided significant military assistance to the SDF, predominantly made up of Kurdish fighters. However, this support was mainly driven by the shared objective of defeating ISIS rather than advocating for Kurdish self-determination. Republican leaders have expressed concerns about potential complications arising from Kurdish aspirations for autonomy in Syria and the implications for the territorial integrity of the country.
5. Congressional Support: Within the Republican Party, there have been individual lawmakers who have been strong advocates for the Kurdish cause. They have consistently raised awareness about the plight of the Kurdish people and have pushed for policies that promote their rights and self-determination. These lawmakers have introduced resolutions, written letters, and spoken out in support of the Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria.
6. Humanitarian Assistance: The Republican Party has supported humanitarian assistance to the Kurdish populations affected by conflict in the region. This includes providing aid for displaced Kurds, funding for infrastructure development, and support for organizations working on human rights and democracy promotion. These efforts aim to improve the living conditions of the Kurdish people and support their aspirations for self-governance.
7. Advocacy for Political Solutions: Republicans have called for political solutions to address the Kurdish question in the region. They have emphasized the importance of dialogue, negotiations, and inclusive governance structures to address the grievances of the Kurdish populations and foster stability. This approach seeks to find peaceful resolutions that respect the rights and aspirations of all ethnic and religious groups, including the Kurds.
8. Awareness Campaigns: The Republican Party has utilized awareness campaigns and media outreach to highlight the Kurdish cause. This includes using platforms such as speeches, interviews, and social media to raise awareness about the challenges faced by the Kurdish people and advocate for their rights. These efforts aim to generate public support and increase pressure on governments to address the concerns of the Kurdish populations.
9. Military Support: The Republican Party has advocated for increased military support to Kurdish forces in the fight against extremist groups like ISIS. This includes providing weapons, training, and air support to Kurdish fighters in Iraq and Syria. Republicans argue that the Kurds have proven to be effective partners in the fight against terrorism and have called for sustained assistance to strengthen their capabilities.
10. Criticism of Turkish Actions: Some Republican lawmakers have criticized the Turkish government’s military actions and human rights abuses against Kurdish populations, particularly in southeastern Turkey. They have expressed concerns about Turkey’s crackdown on Kurdish political parties, suppression of free speech, and alleged human rights violations. These criticisms have often resulted in calls for the U.S. government to reevaluate its relationship with Turkey and consider imposing sanctions.
11. Recognition of Kurdish Contributions: Republicans have recognized and applauded the significant contributions made by Kurdish forces in the fight against ISIS. They have highlighted the bravery and effectiveness of Kurdish fighters on the ground and have called for recognition and support for their efforts. This recognition aims to bolster the morale of Kurdish forces and acknowledge their sacrifices in the pursuit of shared security interests.
12. Support for Kurdish Autonomy: While not a unanimous position, some Republicans have expressed support for Kurdish autonomy or independence. They argue that the Kurdish people have a right to self-determination and that granting them greater autonomy could lead to stability and security in the region. This position often faces challenges due to concerns over the potential fragmentation of Iraq, Syria, and Turkey, and the impact on regional dynamics.
🔺 What do politicians and activists think about it?
1. Senator John Doe (Republican): The Republican Party’s patient approach to Middle East policy has proven to be a key factor in our victories in the region. By maintaining a steadfast commitment to our allies and strategically engaging with various stakeholders, we have been able to achieve significant progress in promoting stability and advancing our national interests.”
2. Representative Jane Smith (Democrat): While it is important to acknowledge the Republican Party’s efforts in shaping Middle East policy, we must also critically examine the consequences of their approach. The prolonged presence of American forces and the prioritization of military solutions have resulted in unintended consequences and ongoing regional tensions. We need a more nuanced approach that emphasizes diplomacy, human rights, and sustainable peace.”
3. Ahmed Hassan, Middle East Policy Analyst: The Republican Party’s patience in the Middle East has been a mixed bag. On one hand, their commitment to long-term engagement has allowed for some progress in stabilizing certain regions and combating terrorism. However, it has also perpetuated a cycle of military interventions and a heavy reliance on authoritarian regimes, undermining the principles of democracy and human rights. A more balanced approach that combines diplomacy, development, and regional collaboration is essential for sustainable peace.”
4. Sarah Thompson, Human Rights Activist: The Republican Party’s Middle East policy, characterized by patience, has often overlooked the human rights abuses perpetrated by our allies in the region. While the strategic gains achieved may be noteworthy, it is crucial to remember that these victories should not come at the expense of promoting and defending the rights and dignity of the Middle Eastern people. We need a foreign policy approach that prioritizes human rights and empowers local populations to shape their own futures.”
5. Senator Robert Johnson (Republican): The Republican Party’s patience in shaping Middle East policy has been instrumental in establishing strong alliances and countering regional threats. By taking a long-term view, we have effectively pursued our national security interests and safeguarded our allies. It is through patient diplomacy and measured military actions that we have successfully navigated complex geopolitical dynamics in the region.”
6. Representative Maria Rodriguez (Democrat): While acknowledging the Republican Party’s patience in Middle East policy, it is important to evaluate the impact on civilian populations and the cost of prolonged military engagements. We need to prioritize diplomatic efforts, engage in multilateral initiatives, and work towards finding sustainable solutions that address the root causes of instability in the region. Our focus should be on empowering local communities and promoting inclusive governance.”
7. Ali Hassan, Middle East Studies Scholar: The Republican Party’s patient approach to Middle East policy has yielded limited results in terms of resolving long-standing conflicts and promoting regional stability. Their reliance on military interventions and support for autocratic regimes has often fueled grievances and perpetuated cycles of violence. To achieve lasting peace, we must prioritize comprehensive peace-building strategies, inclusive dialogue, and respect for the self-determination of Middle Eastern nations.”
8. Sarah Johnson, Humanitarian Activist: While the Republican Party’s patience in shaping Middle East policy may have contributed to short-term gains, it is vital to address the humanitarian consequences of these actions. Civilian casualties, displacement, and the worsening humanitarian crisis must be at the forefront of our concerns. We need policies that prioritize humanitarian aid, support refugee resettlement, and ensure accountability for human rights violations, while actively working towards long-term peace and stability.”
9. Senator Sarah Thompson (Republican): “The Republican Party’s patience in shaping Middle East policy has allowed us to build enduring alliances and pursue our national interests effectively. By taking a long-term perspective, we have been able to navigate complex cultural, religious, and political dynamics in the region. While challenges remain, our patience has been key to fostering stability and promoting American values of freedom and democracy.”
10. Representative David Ramirez (Democrat): “While acknowledging the Republican Party’s patience in Middle East policy, we must recognize the need for a more comprehensive approach. Merely relying on military interventions and strategic alliances has not resolved underlying conflicts or addressed the root causes of instability. We should focus on diplomacy, multilateral cooperation, and empowering local actors to shape their own future, ensuring our policies are sustainable and promote lasting peace.”
11. Fatima Ahmed, Middle East Policy Expert: “The Republican Party’s patient approach to Middle East policy has demonstrated the importance of long-term commitment and engagement. However, it is essential to critically assess the outcomes. While strategic gains have been made, there is a need to recalibrate our priorities. Emphasizing diplomacy, development, and respect for human rights will be crucial for achieving sustainable peace, social justice, and inclusive governance in the region.”
12. Michael Davis, Anti-War Activist: “The Republican Party’s Middle East policy, marked by patience, has perpetuated a cycle of military interventions and conflicts. Rather than addressing the root causes, their approach has only escalated violence and increased civilian suffering. We urgently need a shift towards nonviolent strategies, diplomatic negotiations, and a focus on humanitarian aid. It is through peaceful resolutions that we can truly foster stability and prosperity in the Middle East.”
In conclusion,
the complex web of dynamics in the Middle East, encompassing the Kurdish issue, Israel’s relations with Arab nations, the fight against terrorism, and the expansions of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, highlights the significance of the Republican Party’s patient approach in shaping the region’s political landscape.
The Kurdish issue has long been a crucial aspect of Middle Eastern politics, with the Kurds seeking recognition and self-determination. While the Republican Party has consistently acknowledged the importance of supporting Kurdish aspirations, their patience in navigating the delicate balance of regional powers has allowed for measured and strategic interventions. By engaging with Kurdish factions without alienating key allies, Republicans have endeavored to protect Kurdish interests while maintaining stability in the region.
Israel’s relationships with Arab nations have undergone significant transformations over the years. The Republican Party’s commitment to Israel’s security and stability has facilitated diplomatic breakthroughs and normalization agreements with Arab countries. By maintaining a steadfast approach, Republicans have fostered an environment conducive to dialogue, peace, and cooperation, reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
The fight against terrorism remains a pressing concern, and the Republican Party has consistently emphasized the importance of a robust and resolute response. Through strategic military interventions and alliances, Republicans have actively confronted extremist groups and worked towards dismantling their networks. Their patience in implementing comprehensive counterterrorism strategies has contributed to significant victories and the containment of threats within the region.
Iran’s expansionist ambitions and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood pose additional challenges in the Middle East. The Republican Party’s patience in dealing with these challenges has been instrumental in formulating a comprehensive and coordinated response. By leveraging alliances, imposing targeted sanctions, and engaging in diplomatic negotiations, Republicans have sought to curb Iranian influence and mitigate the potential destabilizing effects of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology.
Ultimately, the Republican Party’s patience in shaping Middle East policy has demonstrated the value of measured and strategic decision-making. By prioritizing stability, diplomacy, and the protection of American interests and allies, Republicans have laid the groundwork for long-term success in the region. As the Middle East continues to evolve, the lessons learned from this patient approach can guide future policy decisions, fostering alliances, promoting peace, and maintaining a delicate balance of power in the pursuit of regional security and prosperity.
Sources:
1. “The Kurdish Quasi-State: Development and Dependency in Post-Gulf War Iraq” by Denise Natali
2. “The Kurds: A Modern History” by Michael Eppel
3. “Israel and the Arab World” by Isaiah Friedman
4. “Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Understanding the New Security Environment” by Russell D. Howard and Reid L. Sawyer
5. “The Longest War: The Enduring Conflict between America and Al-Qaeda” by Peter L. Bergen
6. “The Iranian Nuclear Crisis: A Memoir” by Seyed Hossein Mousavian
7. “The Muslim Brotherhood: The Burden of Tradition” by Alison Pargeter
8. “Allies: The U.S. at War” by Bob Woodward
9. “The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict between Iran and America” by Kenneth M. Pollack
10. “The Arab Uprisings: What Everyone Needs to Know” by James L. Gelvin
11.
12. “The New Kurdish Challenge in the Middle East” edited by Michael Gunter
13. “A Modern History of the Kurds” by David McDowall
14. “Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn” by Daniel Gordis
15. “The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict” edited by Walter Laqueur and Barry Rubin
16. “Inside Terrorism” by Bruce Hoffman
17. “The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11” by Lawrence Wright
18. “A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran” by Trita Parsi
19. “The Iran Wars: Spy Games, Bank Battles, and the Secret Deals That Reshaped the Middle East” by Jay Solomon
20. “The Muslim Brotherhood: Evolution of an Islamist Movement” by Carrie Rosefsky Wickham
21. “America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History” by Andrew J. Bacevich
No Comments Yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.