America Abroad

Why it’s on the list: Brooks and Wohlforth’s case for American engagement: they take the retrenchment argument seriously and dismantle it on its own terms, arguing that the costs of America’s global posture are overstated, the benefits underappreciated, and pulling back would cost more than it saves. The strongest academic statement of the anti-declinist position.

Where I heard about it

• A university syllabus — assigned on a 2026 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. Shared with me in a July 2026 conversation about whether the China threat is over- or under-priced.

About this edition

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.

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