In "The Risks of Ignoring Strategic Insolvency," Michael Mazarr argues that the post-war U.S. approach to strategy is rapidly becoming insolvent and unsustainable. If Washington continues to cling to its existing role on the premise that the international order depends upon it, the result will be increasing resistance, economic ruin, and strategic failure. Mazarr outlines a number of specific causes of insolvency, from financial to changing global political realities, and then discusses the risks of ignoring this emerging reality, such as the waning credibility of U.S. diplomatic promises. He briefly suggests the direction for necessary changes-a shift in the strategic concept underlying the U.S. global posture, trading the role of global hegemon for a more efficient role as global partner and catalyst. In a Washington Post op-ed entitled "The Foreign Policy Debate We Should Be Having," columnist David Ignatius praised the essay as "one of the best summaries I've seen of an urgent problem [the presidential candidates] should discuss honestly." The essay, Ignatius notes, "poses the basic question of whether American power needs to be 'resized' to fit a changing world. If the United States fails to trim its ambitions, and tries to stretch its resources ever further to cover all its traditional commitments, the article contends, it is doomed to failure - with the inevitable consequence that the fabric of American power will rip."

"Turkey's Strategic Vision and Syria"

"State Responsibility for Cyber Attacks: Competing Standards for a Growing Problem"

"Comparing Caveats: Understanding the Sources of National Restrictions upon NATO Missions in Afghanistan"

Reflections on CIA Analysis

Dealing with North Korean Futures