This will be a year of congressional and state elections and, undoubtedly, continuing focus on the health care law and its implementation and ramifi cations.

We can also anticipate ongoing attention devoted to economic and fi nancial issues and government spending.

Additionally, there will be debate about the effectiveness and legality of government surveillance programs.

These topics and a variety of domestic social and political issues will be on the agenda.

However, there are critical international and foreign policy questions to be confronted as well. It will be interesting to see the extent to which foreign policy and national security issues receive attention in the political battles ahead.

For example, in the U.S. Senate race in Arkansas, Republican candidate Tom Cotton has identifi ed himself with an activist and muscular foreign policy. Cotton’s campaign against incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor will be closely watched nationally, with Pryor being labeled by some as the most vulnerable Democrat at a time when control of the Senate is at stake. Cotton, a first-term member of the U.S. House, has been called the “immaculate candidate” by a respected national publication and can point to a resume that includes two Ivy League degrees and tours of military service in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although his opposition to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act and other administration initiatives are popular in conservative circles, Cotton’s stance on international issues and American interventionism would appear much less in accord with public opinion and contrary to the views of libertarians as well as liberals.

Cotton lines up with the John McCain-Lindsey Graham interventionist wing. He was one of the relatively few in Congress, and only member of the Arkansas delegation, favoring intervention in Syria when the Obama administration was considering such action.

Then there’s the matter of Iraq. All too predictably, it has descended into sectarian strife and a turbulent morass. Rejuvenated al-Qaida-linked militants are violently asserting themselves in areas where only a few years ago U.S. troops battled to crush the insurgency. Fallujah, where U.S. Marines fought the bloodiest battle of the Iraq War, with 1,300 Americans killed, has now been captured by al-Qaida militants.

Cotton, who served in Iraq, has called it a “just and noble war” and a necessary one.

Now, let’s be clear: Criticism here is not directed at those Americans who served in Iraq and deserve respect. They did what they were asked to do, and they and this country paid a heavy price.

But it was a war undertaken on false pretenses, and although a brutal autocrat was deposed, it spurred turmoil and factional rivalries, leaving a leadership vacuum and contributing to increasing instability in the region.

U.S. forces withdrew at the end of 2011. Although some wanted to retain an American military presence there, public support for that was minimal.

This leads to the broader question of what should be the American role in that region and internationally and what really serves our national interests. What is happening in Iraq should help bring these questions into focus and provide some lessons for the future, including what may be ahead in Afghanistan, which has been America’s longest war.

How should American power be exercised? During more than half the years since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has been in combat, “The Economist” points out. Even before Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), the U.S. intervened abroad once every 16 months on average from 1989-2001.

Do we want to continue along that path?

There are those who not long ago favored military action against Iran with its perceived development of nuclear capability. At present, however, there is guarded hope for an agreement with Iran, negotiated by the Obama administration and fi ve partner nations (including China and Russia), under which Iran would restrict its uranium-enrichment program in exchange for a reduction of economic sanctions. Regardless, congressional skeptics want to move ahead with even tougher sanctions, convinced Iran is not serious about limiting its nuclear program, The White House says new sanctions would be, in effect, a “march toward war.”

Any agreement with Iran puts the United States at odds with two of its longstanding allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Here we see a potential clash in national interests with the U.S. perspective in trying to deal with Iran contrary to the views of the Israelis and Saudis.

U.S. policies and actions are at a fork in the road and vital strategic choices lie ahead — among them whether the promised Obama “pivot” to focusing on Asia, with a de-emphasis on Middle East matters, can be implemented.

We will properly hear plenty this year from Cotton, Pryor and other candidates and political figures about pocketbook issues, health care, etc., but we should also recognize how much is at stake in our international policies and actions. We need hard-headed assessment of American interests.

HOYT PURVIS IS A JOURNALISM

AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS PROFESSOR.