America Abroad

The case for American engagement, argued by the two political scientists most associated with the claim that the unipolar moment has been unusually durable. Brooks and Wohlforth take the retrenchment argument seriously and then try to dismantle it on its own terms: that the costs of America’s global posture are routinely overstated, that the benefits are real and underappreciated, and that pulling back would cost more than it saves.

Context: Oxford University Press, 2016, 288 pages. The hardcover carried the blunter subtitle Why the Sole Superpower Should Not Pull Back from the World; the paperback softened it to The United States’ Global Role in the 21st Century. Widely debated on publication, including an H-Diplo roundtable.

Why it’s on the list: The strongest academic statement of the anti-declinist position, and the necessary counterweight to a library that currently reads the China question almost entirely through defense-industrial capacity.

Where I saw it: Assigned on a 2026 university syllabus for a course on U.S. security policy in the 21st century, alongside Restraint and Command of Commerce. The course deliberately pairs the anti-declinist readings with their best refutations rather than settling the argument.

Connections

• The Anduril Thesis (Book) — the opposite reading of the same decade. Where Brooks and Wohlforth argue American power is durable, Kyle’s own book argues the industrial base has been hollowed out. The gap between them is the interesting part.
• The Kill Chain — Chris Brose on the erosion of America’s military-technological edge, which is the specific claim Brooks and Wohlforth are pushing back on.
• Chip War — the supply-chain version of the same debate.
• Restraint · Command of Commerce — the other two books assigned on the same syllabus.
• China