In 1991, the United States and a new Russia agreed to the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (START), which recently expired. The Obama administration has re-engaged Russia, breathing new life into arms limitation talks. The New York Times argues that the administration should aggressively pursue new arms reductions, including the renewal of START and the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

In a report on the state of American democracy promotion, Carothers outlines key reforms to the US Agency on International Development (USAID) that would improve the US government's capacity to promote democracy abroad. Though the report identifies a suite of flaws with USAID practices, it focuses primarily on structural reforms that would streamline aid delivery.

In an innovative and daring proposal, Glenn Hubbard advocates a corporate approach to US foreign aid reflecting the Marshall Plan model. As Congress is considering dramatic reform to the institutional channels through which aid is directed, this plan does not offer a new mechanism for aid as much as a new direction that trusts markets and the motive force of private commerce.

The watershed Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is fast becoming obsolete as the structure and substance of the foreign policy apparatus have dramatically changed.  Recognizing that the U.S. has a vested security interest in the development and stability of poor nations around the world, several prominent Senators from the Foreign Relations Committee have proposed sweeping structural change to how America provides foreign aid.  Their proposal is presented alongside a House bill with similar goals.

Strategic planning in US foreign policy has consistently declined since the advent of the containment doctrine.  In the recent book, Avoid Trivia (ed. Daniel Drezner), experts on strategic planning offer analysis of an prescriptions for the future of strategy in US foreign policymaking.  Bruce Jentleson, a contributor and member of President Clinton's policy planning staff, argues that more collaboration among bureaus is needed in order to devise an effective and comprehensive international strategy.

The American approach to global development is fractured.  Over 20 government agencies have some responsibility for promoting economic development in the poorest regions of the world.  While the State Department has a Policy Planning department to develop coherent long-term strategies and the White House publishes a periodic National Security Stratgy, there is no such unified thinking on global development.  The Center for American Progress scholars Reuben Brigety and Sabina Dewan have a two-part policy proposal: first, they claim that every American administration needs to have a National Strategy for Global Development.  Second, they suggest what that strategy should include.

The Pakistani civilian government has become renowned for its weakness and instability. While the US continues to provide billions in aid to Pakistan, the aid money is not fulfilling its stated purposes. This policy outlines a new mode of diplomatic engagement with the Pakistanis and a new strategy to help build the Pakistani state.

As Iran continues its pursuit of nuclear technology and a host of unstable nations declare their willingness to do the same, nuclear non-proliferation is a crucially important objective.  Pascual and Pifer outline the main points that a nuclear non-proliferation policy should include.

Hillary Clinton sets forth the new foreign policy of the Obama administration.  The grand strategy claims that using a multiplicity of foreign policy tools will foster a more effective US foreign policy.  The strategy chooses to mix pragmatism with humanism, arguing that there exists a humanitarian imperative to consult honestly with other nations of the world.

In a New York Times Op-Ed, Marine and former Kennedy School fellow Paul Kane outlines three fundamental reforms to the United States military.  In reshaping the US Defense Budget, he argues, Secretary Gates should concomitantly reform the branches of the armed forces, personnel policy and broader service requirements.  Though bold, his suggestions are all plausible.

Robert Gates set forth the Obama administration’s defense policy strategy in his first statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 27, 2009.  Gates outlined the chief security issues facing the new administration and how the Obama team will approach them. 

During the course of his successful campaign for president, Barack Obama committed to a conditional withdrawal from Iraq by summer 2010, but assured skeptics that this was a flexible date subject to conditions on the ground.  Experts argue that the withdrawal may take longer than Obama anticipates, and a residual force may be necessary to continue training Iraqi forces.  Obama's first decisive policy statement on his withdrawal statement was made in a speech to the troops at Camp Lejeune on the morning of February 27, 2009.

After the September, 11, 2001 attacks, the United States Government responded with a new foreign policy strategy that presented new ideological and tactical focuses.  Advancing democracy and fighting terrorism were the chief concerns.  The 2001 strategy survived as the foundational expression of national security policy throughout Bush's administration.