Search

Begin New Search Topic War Political Geography America Content Type Working Paper

1. Preparing for One War and Getting Another?

Author:
Antulio J. Echevarria II
Publication Date:
09-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
Current trends in defense thinking show signs of being influenced by the notion that preparing for one form of war has brought about another. We find evidence of this notion in a number of official speeches, the 2008 National Defense Strategy, and the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Report. It is captured in the almost routine claim that America's superiority in conventional warfare is so great that it is driving our adversaries toward irregular methods. All of these examples share the basic assumption that we are now fighting (and will likely continue to fight) conflicts for which we have not prepared—precisely because we have not prepared for them. Thus, the modern complement—a preparation paradox—to the old Latin adage “If you want peace, prepare for war,” might well be “If you want one kind of war, prepare for another.”
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Terrorism, War, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Counterinsurgency
Political Geography:
United States and America

2. After the 2008 Russia-Georgia War: Implications for the Wider Caucasus and Prospects for Western Involvement in Conflict Resolution

Author:
Nona Mikhelidze
Publication Date:
02-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
Following the war between Georgia and Russia in August 2008 and the ensuing Russian recognition of independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Caucasus has risen again on the Euro-Atlantic security agenda. First, the war highlighted that the “frozen” nature of the South Caucasus conflicts was a chimera, even if the war may have entrenched further the frozen nature of peace processes in the region. Second, the crisis generated new sources of instability for the entire post-Soviet space, not only because it highlighted a new form of Russian revisionism but also because it brought to the fore the limits of Western policies in what Kremlin views as its sphere of influence. The war brought to the forefront the colliding foreign policy agendas of the major external actors in the region. Not only in the run-up to the war, but also in the months and years preceding it, the American and European responses to Russia have been firm in rhetoric but compromising in reality. Russia made it clear that it has it own claims over the South Caucasus, it demonstrated its readiness to embark on military confrontation in order to achieve its goals, and through the war it wished to make crystal clear to the international community that Moscow is the only game in town. Third and related, the war exposed the inability of the West to prevent Russia from moving aggressively to restore its primacy over the former Soviet Union's territory. Thus the August war posed new implications and challenges not only for Georgia, but also for the wider Caucasus and beyond. This new context has induced the West to react and redefine its strategy towards the region and its relations with Russia, it has raised the urgency to engage in conflict resolution issues, and it has highlighted further the need for energy diversification.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Security, and War
Political Geography:
Russia, America, Europe, Moscow, and Abkhazia

3. Hybrid Threats: Reconceptualizing the Evolving Character of Modern Conflict

Author:
Frank G. Hoffman
Publication Date:
04-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Academy of Political Science
Abstract:
America's ongoing battles in Afghanistan and Iraq have highlighted limitations in our understanding of the complexity of modern warfare. Furthermore, our cultural prism has retarded the institutionalization of capabilities needed to prevail in stabilization and counter-insurgency missions.
Topic:
War and Counterinsurgency
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Iraq, and America

4. The Army's Professional Military Ethic in an Era of Persistent Conflict

Author:
Don M. Snider, Major Paul Oh, and Kevin Toner.
Publication Date:
10-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
The purpose of the Army's Ethic is stated clearly in Field Manual (FM) 1, The Army . It is “to maintain [the Army's] effectiveness.” The implication is as clear as it is true—without such an ethic, the Army cannot be effective at what it does. As is well-documented in the literature of professions, their ethics provide the primary means of social direction and control over their members as they perform their expert duties, often under chaotic conditions. For the Army profession, its evolving expert knowledge in the moral-ethical domain is what enables the profession to develop individual professionals—Soldiers and their leaders—to fight battles and campaigns “effectively and rightly,” as expected by the client the profession serves. Without such good, right, and just application of its expertise, the Army will lose its lifeblood—the trust of the American people.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and War
Political Geography:
United States and America

5. Diplomacy in a Dangerous World: A Conversation with America's Top Diplomats

Author:
Thomas R. Pickering, R. Nicholas Burns, Robert Kimmitt, Marc Grossman, and David D. Newsom
Publication Date:
01-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University
Abstract:
On October 29, 2007, the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy hosted a roundtable with Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns, and his predecessors as Under Secretaries from past administrations. This was a rare opportunity to hear from the nation's top diplomatic practitioners together in one room. The Under Secretary for Political Affairs is the third most senior position in the State Department, and traditionally at the center of U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy formulation.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Political Violence, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Government, Terrorism, and War
Political Geography:
America

6. 9/11 and the Paradox of American Power

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
12-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The New School Graduate Program in International Affairs
Abstract:
The September 2001 attacks on the United States facilitated the formation of an effective domestic consensus on post-Cold War US globalism – a goal that had eluded the Clinton administration. The centerpiece of that consensus is the "war on terrorism." This puts US global engagement in a "war-fighting" framework, which has strong institutional, cultural, and ideological resonances in the American polity. And it admits both neo-conservative and neo-liberal varieties. However, the attendant surge in US military activism has proved both fabulously expensive and largely counter-productive. Moreover, it has helped undermine America's already-troubled hegemonic position within the Western and allied camp.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Imperialism, Terrorism, and War
Political Geography:
United States and America

7. Earning from History: Financial Markets and the Approach of World Wars

Author:
Niall Ferguson
Publication Date:
02-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
We are living through a paradox-or so it seems. Since September 11, 2001, according to a number of neo-conservative commentators, America has been fighting World War III (or IV, if you like to give the Cold War a number). For more than six years, these commentators have repeatedly drawn parallels between the "War on Terror" that is said to have begun in September 2001 and World War II. Immediately after 9/11, Al Qaeda and other radical Islamist groups were branded "Islamofascists". Their attack on the World Trade Center was said to be our generation's Pearl Harbor. In addition to coveting weapons of mass destruction and covertly sponsoring terrorism, Saddam Hussein was denounced as an Arab Hitler. The fall of Baghdad was supposed to be like the liberation of Paris. Anyone who opposed the policy of pre-emption was an appeaser. And so on.
Topic:
Cold War, Economics, Terrorism, War, and Financial Crisis
Political Geography:
America and Iran

8. Just Deserts in Iraq: American Vengeance for 9/11

Author:
Linda J. Skitka and Peter Liberman
Publication Date:
10-2008
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Arnold A. Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies
Abstract:
In January 2002 national survey data, we find a strong relationship between Americans' desire to avenge 9/11 and their bellicosity toward Iraq, even after controlling for the perceived terrorist threat, left right ideology, and approval of U.S. political leaders. This effect could have been due to suspicions of Iraqi complicity in 9/11 stemming from prior enemy images of Iraq, or to the effects of anger and desires for revenge on out-group antipathy, displaced blame, and optimistic assessment of war risks. We test the out group antipathy hypothesis and find evidence that anti-Arab and anti-Muslim antipathy partially mediated vengefulness's effect on bellicosity. Vengeance, in turn, was boosted by retributiveness (proxied by rightwing authoritarianism) and patriotism. While perceptions of the Iraqi threat probably assumed greater importance over the course of the following year, additional survey data shows that even as war approached, most supporters acknowledged it would satisfy a desire for revenge.
Topic:
Islam, Terrorism, and War
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, America, Middle East, and Arabia

9. Force and Restraint in Strategic Deterrence: A Game-Theorist's Perspective

Author:
Roger B. Myerson
Publication Date:
11-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
In a dangerous world, we need to think very carefully about how military force is used. Game theory can serve us in such analyses by providing a framework for probing the inextricable connections between our adversaries' decision problems and our own. To illustrate the power of game theory, the author focuses on a vital question that confronts American policymakers today: What determines why an application of military force, which was intended to deter potential adversaries, sometimes instead stimulates them to more militant reactions against us? When we feel that force is necessary, what can we do to minimize the risk of such adverse reactions?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, War, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
America

10. America Speaks Out: Is the United States spending too much on defense?

Author:
Carl Conetta
Publication Date:
03-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
On 1-4 February 2007, the Gallup polling organization asked a representative sample of US citizens if they thought the United States was spending too little, too much, or just the right amount on defense and the military.{1} For the first time since the mid-1990s, a plurality of Americans said that the country was spending too much. The surprising result of the survey shows current public attitudes to approximate those that prevailed in March 1993, shortly after former President Bill Clinton took office. Today, 43 percent of Americans say that the country is spending “too much” on the military, while 20 percent say “too little”. In 1993, the balance of opinion was 42 percent saying “too much” and 17 percent saying too little.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Economics, and War
Political Geography:
United States and America