| This week's curated content continues to follow the grand strategy implications of President Biden's fledgling administration. As always, we start with the implications with respect to America's most significant geopolitical challenge--China. On this topic, we recommend Doug Bandow's insightful piece suggesting that the US needs to moderate its "neo-Cold War" approach to China in order to build a more robust and lasting geopolitical coalition to advance its interests. James Dorsey's important piece explores the implications in the Middle East of the emerging and intensifying geopolitical rivalry between the US and China. Speaking of the Middle East, there is much unfinished business from a restrainer perspective--chief among which is the much-promised and long-awaited troop withdrawals. As the Biden administration seems to be gearing up for increased troop presence in Syria, William Ruger, Trump's pick for Ambassador to Afghanistan, argues forcefully why it's time to "get out." Christopher Woody helpfully recapitulates Ruger's arguments. On other Middle East issues, Trita Parsi offers a comprehensive blueprint for reengaging with Middle East foreign policy in a restrained and future-oriented manner. Bonnie Kristian's piece addresses the general and encompassing issue of US meddling abroad and is a useful companion piece to John Feffer's insightful contribution on the future of democracy promotion. Students of grand strategy understand the difficulty, perhaps even impossibility, of fully disentangling domestic considerations from foreign policy ones. One simple but essential instance of this is the lobbying power of arms manufacturers, and their poisonous effect on US foreign policy. The tumultuous events of the past several weeks have seen the interplay between the US national security apparatus and the domestic population in another context, one that seeks "to elevate white supremacists and others in the same way we have Islamists." Richard Hanania's powerful and important piece counsels against this dangerous approach, drawing parallels to the failed war on terror and the expansion of domestic powers accrued to the American national security establishment under that increasingly questionable pretext. In the News Eldar Mamedov, Responsible Statecraft Daniel DePetris, Washington Examiner Stephen Kinzer, Boston Globe Stephen Walt, Foreign Policy Christopher Woody, Business Insider Trita Parsi, Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft John Feffer, Responsible Statecraft Daniel DePetris, Newsweek Doug Bandow, China-US Focus Daniel Larison, American Conservative Daniel DePetris, National Interest Nicholas Miller, War on the Rocks Richard Hanania, Responsible Statecraft Tawakkol Karman, Washington Post W. James Antle III, Responsible Statecraft Net Assessment Chris, Zack, and Melanie sit down to discuss Thomas Spoehr’s article “The Six Blind Men and the Elephant: Differing Views on the U.S. Defense Budget.” How should we assess whether the defense budget is adequate (or excessive) for its purposes? Do we ask our military to fulfill too many purposes? Will the new Congress and administration be willing to make politically unpopular cuts, even if those changes might result in long-term savings and enhanced effectiveness? | 
