Trade is the all-but-forgotten weapon in the battle against poverty, but it can provide more help to the poor than aid can.

There is a clear norm against the spread of nuclear weapons, but there is no consensus or treaty on what, if anything, is to be done once a country develops or acquires nuclear weapons.

Homegrown terrorists are a real problem for even the most modern, democratic societies.

Modern terrorism is too destructive to be tolerated, much less supported.

America's armed forces are an essential background to much of what the U.S. accomplishes internationally.

Terrorism needs to be de-legitimized in the way that slavery has been. Doing so will make governments and individuals think twice before becoming a party to terrorism; it should also make it less difficult to garner support for international action against those who nevertheless carry it out.

Terrorism is a decentralized phenomenon - in its funding, planning, and execution.

Middle East history is replete with examples of missed and lost chances to make peace.

The U.S. does not want to live under the shadow of a North Korea that possesses long-range missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads to American cities. At the same time, the U.S. has no appetite for a war that would prove costly by every measure.

The Trump administration has been characterized by adhocracy during its initial months. The initiative limiting immigration is a case in point. The new policy was not vetted fully within the administration - indeed, then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates first read the decision after the text of the new executive order was published online.

An open, market-oriented, and peaceful Iraq could also advance reform and growth across the entire region.

Generically, wars in necessity are wars where, I think, the vital interest of the nation are at stake, in which there are no viable alternatives to the use of force.

No one pursuing reasonable goals and who is prepared to compromise can argue that terrorism is his or his group's only option.

The horror and tragedy that was 9/11 did many things; one of them was to galvanize this country and much of the world against terrorists and those who support them.

Terrorists continue to be outliers with limited appeal at best.

Americans were happy to buy vast quantities of relatively inexpensive Chinese manufactured goods, demand for which provided jobs for the tens of millions of Chinese who moved from poor agricultural areas to new or rapidly expanding cities.

The abolition of the presidential term limit and President Xi Jinping's concentration of power have come as an unwelcome surprise to many.

Trump's foreign policy is not so much immoral as it is amoral.

It is important to signal that opposition to the use of any weapon of mass destruction is both deep and broad.

The United States, working closely with the United Kingdom and others, established the liberal world order in the wake of World War II. The goal was to ensure that the conditions that had led to two world wars in 30 years would never again arise.

The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the E.U. attested to the loss of elite influence.

The rise of populism is in part a response to stagnating incomes and job loss, owing mostly to new technologies but widely attributed to imports and immigrants.

Russia may well be willing to stop interfering in Eastern Ukraine in exchange for a degree of sanctions relief if it could be assured that ethnic Russians there would not face reprisals.

It is true that the U.S. could and should have been more generous as Russia made its painful transition to a market economy in the 1990s.

Indeed, the big U.S. error after 9/11 was to treat Pakistan as if it were an ally. With an ally, it is possible to assume a large degree of policy overlap. With Pakistan, no such assumption can be made.

Bad situations can always get worse.

American presidents get to make lots of choices, with one critical exception: what awaits them in the in-box on top of the desk in the Oval Office.

The United States is not just another country. It has more capacity and potential to influence the world than any other country - and no other country has the resources and mindset to lead a world that is not on autopilot.

Paradigm shifts, particularly in diplomacy and security issues, are, by definition, major undertakings.

Americans never would alter the way entitlement programs are funded or education administered without serious study and widespread debate.

Security is the absolute precondition for sustainable recovery from conflict; without it, people cannot rebuild their country or return to school or work.

History shows that societies where opportunity is safeguarded tend to be societies that are good international citizens.

No country can succeed if it denies itself the talents of half of its people.

Americans, for their part, must accept that a strong Europe will not be content to simply do America's bidding.

It is neither feasible nor desirable for Europe to establish itself as a geopolitical equal or competitor of the U.S.

In a global world, what happens within one country can all too easily affect others.

Russian membership in the World Trade Organization has the potential to strengthen the rule of law, combat corruption, and give Russia a stake in better relations with the outside world.

The benefits of freer trade, such as job creation, lower inflation, and greater consumer choice, are often invisible or only partly visible.

Weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons - are just that, and no cause can excuse their use.

The United States emerged from the Cold War with unprecedented absolute and relative power. It was truly first among unequals.

The decision to attack Iraq in March 2003 was discretionary; it was a war of choice.

There is no getting around the reality that the second Iraq war was a war of choice; had it been carried out differently, it still would have been an expensive choice and almost certainly a bad one.

Dissent is as American as cherry pie.

I did not support the U.S. decision to intervene with military force in Libya. The evidence was not persuasive that a large-scale massacre or genocide was either likely or imminent. Policies other than military intervention were never given a full chance.

Foreign policy must be about priorities. The United States cannot do everything everywhere.

America must reduce its fiscal deficit, modernize its infrastructure, and improve its schools.

On occasion, terrorists will succeed despite our best efforts. That is part of the legacy of 9/11. But 9/11 also shows us that while terrorists can destroy, they are unable to create.

If you assume away most or all of the questions or difficulties, you can persuade yourself of just about anything.

If anything, what happened in Iraq after the fall of Saddam set back prospects for democratic reform in the region, as many came to associate political change with chaos.

White House staff are meant to coordinate and set policy, not carry it out.