Stephen Biddle discusses how domestic politics still clashes with strategic imperatives in U.S. Afghan policy.

The most realistic and acceptable alternative models of governance in Afghanistan are decentralized democracy and a system of internal mixed sovereignty.

Stephen Biddle examines recent combat experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq and argues that the efficacy of U.S. air power is constrained by the proficiency of indigenous allies on the ground.

The most realistic and acceptable alternative models of governance in Afghanistan are decentralized democracy and a system of internal mixed sovereignty.

The situation in Iraq is improving. With the right strategy, the United States will eventually be able to draw down troops without sacrificing stability.

The prognosis for Iraq looks bad and is getting worse. If the trend does not improve soon, the United States may have no choice but to cut its losses and get out. Recently, many have looked to the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to engineer a change in strategy that might arrest this decline, and the ISG's report does indeed contain some useful ideas and worthwhile recommendations. But on the whole, it offers the political groundwork for a complete withdrawal more than it offers a sustainable solution to the conflict.

Examining the decline of violence in Iraq at the end of 2007, Stephen Biddle, Jeffrey A. Friedman, and Jacob Shapiro argue, "A synergistic interaction between the surge and the [Sunni] Awakening was required for violence to drop as quickly and widely as it did: both were necessary; neither was sufficient."

Stephen Biddle, Jeffrey A. Friedman, and Jacob N. Shapiro examine the reasons for the reversal in 2007 from years of intense bloodshed in Iraq to almost four years of relative calm since then.

Stephen Biddle discusses how domestic politics still clashes with strategic imperatives in U.S. Afghan policy.

Stephen Biddle argues that troop withdrawal from Iraq should be slow and gradual.

Stephen Biddle discusses the perils of viewing the situation in Iraq as a "solved problem."

Stephen Biddle argues that "there is no magic middle way between the McChrystal recommendation and total withdrawal that offers comparable odds at lower cost" in Afghanistan.

Stephen Biddle writes that the war in Afghanistan "is now poised to become perhaps the most controversial and divisive issue in U.S. defense policy."

Stephen Biddle examines recent combat experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq and argues that the efficacy of U.S. air power is constrained by the proficiency of indigenous allies on the ground.

Gen. David Petraeus’ assertions about falling casualties in Iraq are supported by a range of objective sources. But his testimony to Congress does not establish whether the decline is attributable to the surge or to sectarian cleansing.

Experts from the Council on Foreign Relations and the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution propose a new, nonpartisan Middle East strategy drawing on the lessons of past failures to address both the short- and long-term challenges to U.S. interests.

Iraq is currently in the early stages of a negotiated end to an intense ethnosectarian war. As such, there are several contingencies in which recent, mostly positive trends in Iraq could be reversed, threatening U.S. national interests. This Center for Preventive Action Contingency Planning Memorandum by Stephen Biddle assesses four interrelated scenarios in Iraq that could derail the prospects for peace and stability in the short to medium term and posits concrete policy options to limit U.S. vulnerability to the possibility of such reversals.

In the next military budget Congress must provide funding for a wholesale shift toward counterinsurgency to win two wars. At the same time, policymakers must be mindful of the need for another transformation to anticipate future wars.