If using military forces to achieve a given political intent is what practitioners consider strategy, then Grand Strategy is how a state’s diplomats use their capable military force to secure their state’s interests by aligning resources with goals. Using this consideration, then it is plausible that politicians use the US military to maintain our interests both at home and abroad—especially if it means we maintained a global hegemony. Therefore, after reading Dr. Porter’s monograph “Sharing Power? Prospects For a U.S. Concert-Balance Strategy,” I agree with his point that the US will retract their commitments based on a response to a decline in relative power through retrenchment, but disagree that this is a new thought because American politicians have always spent resources, legislated, threatened or fought to defend what was deemed most important at the time. Retrenchment is the departure from strategic assurances to readdress resources on “core commitments” that reestablish our essential functions. This reduction of our foreign policy commitments forced us to accept that our post Cold War focus of uncontested primacy, or global hegemony as the preferred status in the world, can no longer be maintained. That is why the Department of Defense (DoD) revamped the National Defense Strategy in 2012 forcing the DoD to establish more agile, flexible, rapidly deployable, technologically advanced, and cost effective forces. Politicking this shift, former Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta spoke on building successful inter-state partnerships using the military to strengthen and establish global partnerships. By aligning our strategy of security through building alliances and partnerships, the DoD prompted the US Government to pursue cooperation in areas of mutual concerns that laid the foundational basis of Concert-Balance strategy. Concert-Balance