President Obama today unveiled a new national defense strategy  creating a "leaner"  force that Secretary of Defense Panetta allows will create "some level of additional but acceptable risk."  Moving away from the traditional two war strategy, and hinting at substantial reductions in Europe, the President presented a dramatic shift in global posture for the United States.

Carrying out the missions associated with securing four fundamental interests has been the raison d'être of U.S. military forces under presidents of both parties in times of conflict, of Cold-War competition, and in moments of relative stability and peace. Taken together, they define America's role in the world.

Under current law, the U.S. Department of Defense automatically faces significant spending cuts over the next 10 years—cuts that america's civilian and military leaders have cadidly described as "devastating" and "very high risk."

The capacity of the US military is both dangerously small and imperfectly shaped for the coming decades.

AEI resident scholar Mackenzie Eaglen was testifying Wednesday to the U.S. House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, in which she explained that the 2013 long-term shipbuilding plan "does not accurately portray the forces or funding necessary to execute the administration’s strategy."

Are military budgets and forces adequate to meet U.S. national security strategy goals?

More than just counterterrorism, counterinsurgency is necessary to defeat al Qaeda.

For the moment, all of America's enemies prefer to fight through unconventional or irregular warfare rather than through traditional force-on-force engagements.