Although it has problems, a de facto partition of Afghanistan, in which Washington pursues nation building in the north and counterterrorism in the south, offers an acceptable fallback.

Increased connectivity allows for the spread of liberal, open values but also poses a number of dangers.

A favorite view of the Internet holds that the democratization of communications will bring about the democratization of the world.

The United States worldwide system of more than 1,000 military bases, stations, and outposts has actually provokes conflict and creates insecurity.

Americans have growing doubts about the U.S. mission in Afghanistan that U.S. President Barack Obama seems to share. But the United States should and will maintain a major presence in Afghanistan for years to come.

In today's Russia, officers in the country's security agencies -- especially the FSB -- wield great influence over Russia's political life, foreign policy, and economic interests.

The Pentagon recognizes the catastrophic threat posed by cyberwarfare, and is partnering with allied governments and private companies to prepare itself.

A pernicious mix of heavy-handed rule, corrupt governance, high unemployment, and militant Islam has reignited the Russian North Caucasus.

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

The U.S. government must improve its ability to help its partners defend themselves or, if necessary, fight alongside U.S. troops.

Thanks to the country's favorable location on the map, China's influence is expanding on land and at sea, from Central Asia to the South China Sea and from the Russian Far East to the Indian Ocean.

As three new books show, defeating the Taliban will require local, bottom-up efforts -- beginning with a deep understanding of tribal and subtribal politics.

The current global nuclear order is extremely fragile, threatened by North Korea's expanding nuclear weapons program, Iran's nuclear ambitions, and Pakistan's increasing instability.

Some threats to international security are so potentially damaging that preventing them in advance is preferable to remedying their effects.

As the Obama administration prepares to send more troops to Afghanistan, what are the problems U.S. forces will face, and what, if anything, can they do to overcome them?

The Obama administration is right that the United States can safely cut some of its nuclear arsenal, but it must retain the right capabilities.

Andrew Krepinevich's vision for the U.S. military underestimates Washington's existing commitments and capabilities, Thomas Donnelly and Philip Dur argue. Not so, replies Krepinevich, and now is no time to stay the course.

The Obama administration's cancellation of a missile-defense network in Europe is not a sign of misguided weakness, but rather the result of a prudent reexamination of U.S. priorities. But what will come in its place?

The President's Intelligence Advisory Board is often criticized as a do-nothing panel. But it might be just the tool Obama needs to fix the U.S. intelligence community.

The military foundations of U.S. dominance are eroding. In response, Washington should pursue new sources of military advantage and a more modest grand strategy.