Sustaining robust U.S. leadership will mean making some tough strategic choices. Americans will have to rank core U.S. interests in order of priority; determine an affordable size for hard- and soft-power instruments (the armed forces, the diplomatic corps, foreign aid); rethink the forward presence of U.S. forces and the current alliance structure; and more carefully weigh the risks of action versus inaction in response to an endless list of global crises. "Our security challenges are growing in scale and shifting in form even as our resources decline," says Andrew Krepinevich, president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. "If that's not a call for rethinking our national strategy, I don't know what is. There's an old military adage that if you try and be strong everywhere, you are strong nowhere."
If the United States can no longer be strong everywhere--the "indispensible nation" in a world full of emergencies--then U.S. officials will have to choose where we can risk not having a presence and what we can reasonably decline to do