« Previous |
1 - 100 of 380
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. United States Foreign Policy Towards Jordan From the Political and Security Dimensions from 1990 to 2017
- Author:
- Ala Alkhawaldeh and Ayman Hayajneh
- Publication Date:
- 03-2023
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
- Institution:
- Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
- Abstract:
- Foreign policy cannot be dissociated from what we call the theory of international relations (Holsti, 2015). Relations between Jordan and the United States go back to 1949 when diplomatic relations were first established. The United States contributed to providing economic and military assistance to Jordan for the first time since 1951 and 1957, respectively, and has continued until now. The United States and Jordan share the common goals of a comprehensive, just, and lasting peace in the Middle East and to end violent extremism that threatens the security of Jordan, the region, and the world at large. The peace process and counterterrorism between the two countries aid American interests. The United States has helped Jordan maintain its stability and prosperity through military assistance and close political cooperation (Bush, 2009).This study examines the United States foreign policy towards Jordan from 1990 to 2017. This period witnessed important regional and international political events that significantly impacted American foreign policy in the Arab region and the United States - Jordan in particular. The political events covered in the study have the greatest impact on the development or decline of relations between the two countries in terms of politically and security aspects.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
3. U.S. Foreign Policy an the War in Ukraine
- Author:
- James A. Russell
- Publication Date:
- 03-2023
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
- Institution:
- Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
- Abstract:
- This essay assesses the impact of the war in Ukraine on American foreign policy. The thesis provided here is that the war in Ukraine must be viewed as a painful but maybe necessary shock therapy that has helped to relieve the residual hangover from America’s two-decade-long, ill-advised war on terror and the lost wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In parallel, the war has served as a vehicle for the reinvigoration of national grand strategy and the foreign policy that provides the vital connective tissue between ends, ways, and means. In this trinity, the foreign policy represents an instrumental tool to connect the assumptions that undergird grand strategy to the practical, real-world of international politics.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Hegemony, Strategic Interests, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
4. India-China Border Tensions and U.S. Strategy in the Indo-Pacific
- Author:
- Lisa Curtis and Derek Grossman
- Publication Date:
- 03-2023
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
- Abstract:
- India-China border intrusions and clashes have become more frequent and threaten to lead to all-out conflict between the two Asian giants. In recent years, China has upped the ante in its border disputes with India through infrastructure development, military deployments, capability enhancements, and periodic efforts to encroach into territory controlled by India. The first deadly border clash between the two countries in 45 years occurred on June 15, 2020, in the Galwan River Valley, where 20 Indian troops and at least four Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops were killed. More recently, on December 9, 2022, Chinese and Indian forces clashed along the disputed border in the mountains near Tawang in the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh after an estimated 300 Chinese PLA soldiers tried to cross the border. While the Chinese and Indian militaries have since pulled back forces from the most contentious standoff sites where the 2020 buildup occurred and established temporary buffer zones, both sides retain high numbers of troops forward deployed along the disputed frontier, and there are several flashpoints that could erupt into another border crisis at any time. The most recent clash that took place near Tawang is a reminder that, even though recent attention has been focused on the Ladakh region, there are multiple trigger points along the 2,100-mile-long Line of Actual Control (LAC) that bear monitoring.1 With both China and India enhancing infrastructure and introducing new and advanced weapons systems on their sides of the disputed border, combined with forward deployments and heightened lack of trust, the chances for continued standoffs that could erupt into local or even full-blown conflict remain high.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Territorial Disputes, and Borders
- Political Geography:
- China, India, Asia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific
5. Buying Time: Logistics for a New American Way of War
- Author:
- Chris Dougherty
- Publication Date:
- 04-2023
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
- Abstract:
- Discussions about defense strategy that focus on combat units and fail to account for logistics are irrelevant when it comes to understanding how well the United States can deter or defeat aggression by China or Russia. Planes, ships, and tanks are just weapons systems; making them combat capabilities requires getting them and their crews into the fight; supplying them with fuel, food, water, medical care, and munitions; and keeping them maintained. Logistics, more than the quantity of forces or the quality of technology, will determine the potential combat power available to the United States in future conflict scenarios with China or Russia. It will influence Chinese and Russian decisions about going to war, and when, where, and how to fight. It will bound the military courses of action available to U.S. commanders and delineate the strategic options available to presidents. Despite this critical role, the Department of Defense has systemically underinvested in logistics in terms of money, mental energy, physical assets, and personnel. Neglect of logistics arguably became most severe in the post–Cold War era. Pressure to save money through efficiency and misguided attempts to run the department like a “lean” business disproportionately impacted logistics. Maximizing the ratio of combat “tooth” to logistical “tail” saved money, but at the cost of leaving U.S. armed forces with a logistical system that is stretched thin supporting peacetime operations and wholly unsuited to the demands of warfare with China or Russia. Recognizing U.S. dependence on strained logistics networks, China and Russia have developed means to attack these networks, including long-range missiles and cyberattacks. Barring changes to U.S. logistics and sustainment concepts, such attacks present a grave threat to the department’s ability to uphold U.S. security commitments in East Asia or eastern Europe.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Logistics
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
6. The Department of Defense Contributions to Pandemic Response
- Author:
- Tom Cullison and J. Stephen Morrison
- Publication Date:
- 05-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The Department of Defense (DOD) should be systematically incorporated into any evolving U.S. government vision on international health security. A process of strategic planning that encompasses a spectrum of valuable DOD contributions to contain the global Covid-19 pandemic should begin right away. DOD has broad capabilities that have consistently proven their high value in addressing the current Covid-19 pandemic and other historical disease outbreaks, in support of the U.S. civilian-led response. The knowledge and experience gained in crisis response at home and overseas contribute to military readiness and improved coordination of all actors involved in preventing, detecting, and responding to infectious disease events. This report draws from months of deliberations organized by the CSIS Commission on Strengthening America’s Health Security’s DOD Working Group. It lays out four concrete and pragmatic recommendations to strengthen DOD’s contributions overseas in advancing U.S. global health security interests
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Public Health, Pandemic, and COVID-19
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
7. Space Threat Assessment 2022
- Author:
- Todd Harrison, Kaitlyn Johnson, Makena Young, Nicholas Wood, and Alyssa Goessler
- Publication Date:
- 04-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- Welcome to the fifth edition of Space Threat Assessment by the Aerospace Security Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Over the past five years, this assessment has used open-source information to track the developments of counterspace weapons that threaten U.S. national security interests in space. The United States has relied heavily on its space infrastructure since the first satellites were launched to track and monitor nuclear missile launches during the Cold War. Over the past six decades, the United States has grown more reliant on the information, situational awareness, and connectivity provided by military, civil, and commercial space systems. It should be no surprise that these assets are a target for adversaries attempting to gain asymmetric military advantage. The Space Threat Assessment is critical to understanding the changing nature of the space domain and monitoring trends in space and counterspace weapons.
- Topic:
- Security, Military Strategy, Governance, and Space
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
8. Defense Acquisition Trends 2021
- Author:
- Gregory Sanders, Won Joon Jang, and Alexander Holderness
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- Defense Acquisition Trends 2021 is the latest in an annual series of reports examining trends in what the DoD is buying, how the DoD is buying it, and from whom the DoD is buying using data from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). This report analyzes the current state of affairs in defense acquisition by combining detailed policy and data analysis to provide a comprehensive overview of the current and future outlook for defense acquisition. It provides critical insights into understanding the current trends in the defense-industrial base and the implications of those trends on acquisition policy.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Industrial Policy, Military Strategy, and Civil-Military Relations
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
9. Beyond Foreign Military Sales: Opportunities to Enhance Japan-U.S. Defense Industrial Cooperation
- Author:
- Takashi Kodaira
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The security environment in the Indo-Pacific region is becoming increasingly severe due to China’s growing military power. Further cooperation between the Japanese and U.S. defense industries will strengthen deterrence, although Japan’s defense industry is currently in a difficult situation, with domestic procurement stagnating. For Japan to fully take advantage of its role in the U.S.-Japan alliance, it must maintain and strengthen the defense industry through defense industrial cooperation with the United States. This report examines trend lines in Japan’s defense industrial strategy and potential avenues for bilateral cooperation to enhance capabilities critical to managing complex security challenges facing the U.S.-Japan alliance.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Industrial Policy, Military Strategy, Defense Industry, and Civil-Military Relations
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
10. Measuring Congressional Impact on Defense Acquisition Funding
- Author:
- Seamus P. Daniels and Todd Harrison
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- Congress exercises its oversight authority on the executive branch’s defense policy via the appropriations process and can choose to match, modify, or eliminate the Department of Defense’s (DoD) requested funding levels for acquisition programs primarily funded by the procurement and research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) accounts. Congress’s decisions in this process can have a significant impact on the executive branch’s defense plans by making adjustments to acquisition projects’ program of record. This in turn can force DoD program management teams to alter schedules and contracting actions, causing second-order effects on private sector partners in the acquisition process. To measure Congress’s impact on defense acquisition funding, this study compares the actual funding level for procurement and RDT&E accounts with the original level proposed in the administration’s budget request and identifies patterns in which accounts are regularly adjusted by Congress. It assesses procurement and RDT&E accounts between fiscal year (FY) 2001 and FY 2020 and conducts data cuts of acquisition funding at the account, category, military department, and budget activity levels. This analysis ultimately aims to inform defense planners, acquisition officials and program managers, and industry partners of trends in congressional appropriations for defense so they can better anticipate Congress’s impact on defense acquisition funding.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Legislation, Defense Industry, and Civil-Military Relations
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
11. U.S. Military Forces in FY 2022: Peering into the Abyss
- Author:
- Mark F. Cancian
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- CSIS senior adviser Mark Cancian annually produces a series of white papers on U.S. military forces, including their composition, new initiatives, long-term trends, and challenges. This report is a compilation of these papers. It takes a deep look at each military service, as well as special operations forces, DOD civilians, and contractors in the FY 2022 budget. This report also discusses the debate about legacy equipment, the interaction of the budget and force size, and the decline in force size that the services face with retiring older systems without adequate replacements.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Defense Industry, and Civil-Military Relations
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
12. Americans on War Powers, Authorization for Use of Military Force and Arms Sales: A National Survey of Registered Voters
- Author:
- Steven Kull
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
- Abstract:
- The question of when the United States should use military force is a profound question. There has been a long-running debate about the role of Congress and the President when it comes to making this decisions. The constitution gives Congress the power to fund the military and declare war, and declares the President as the Commander in Chief of the military. However, there are ambiguities about which branch of government has the power in a number of specific situations related to the use of force and the transfer of arms to another country. Currently there are a number of pieces of Congressional legislation that seek to give Congress greater power. One proposal seeks to give Congress greater influence over the use of military force outside of the framework of a declaration of war or in response to an attack on the US. Current law, grounded in the War Powers Act of 1973, requires that the President withdraw troops after 60 days unless Congress votes in favor of continuing it. However, since its passage, every President has considered this unconstitutional and many have not abided by it, keeping forces in place without Congressional approval. In order to stop such a military operation, Congress must gather a veto-proof majority, or bring the President to court. Neither has ever happened. A proposal that has been put forth in Congress is to ‘flip the script’ on this, and automatically cut off funding to such military operations after 60 days, unless Congress actively votes in favor of continuing the operation. (Based on H.R. 2108, H.R. 5410 and S. 2391) Another proposal deals with the termination of a Congressional authorization to use military force (AUMF). Shortly after the September 11 attacks Congress authorized the President to use military force against those responsible for the attacks, or who have aided those responsible. Since then all presidents have used this AUMF to justify various uses of force that some Members of Congress feel go beyond its original purpose. Currently there is a proposal to terminate this AUMF which requires an act of Congress. (Based on H.R. 255 and S. 2391) The last proposal seeks to give Congress greater authority over arms sales. Currently, all arms sales must be approved by the President, and Congress can only halt an arms sale with a majority vote, or more realistically a veto-proof majority. Members of Congress believe that it should be easier for Congress to halt an arms sale. They have introduced a proposal that would also ‘flip the script’ in this case by requiring that any arms sale over $14 million only proceed if Congress votes in favor. (Based on H.R. 5410 and S. 2391) To bring the American people a voice at the table of the current debate on these various pieces of legislation, the Program for Public Consultation (PPC) has conducted an in-depth on-line survey of 2,702 registered voters with a probability-based sample provided by Nielsen Scarborough.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Public Opinion, and Civil-Military Relations
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
13. Bringing Russia Back in From the Cold
- Author:
- Nikolas Gvosdev and Damjan. Krnjevic Miskovic
- Publication Date:
- 04-2022
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Baku Dialogues
- Institution:
- ADA University
- Abstract:
- Our reasoning is straightforward: for better or worse, Ukraine will never be as important to the West as it is to Russia—and this would be true even if Ukraine was the only item on their respective stra- tegic agendas. But this last is very far from being the case today—cer- tainly for the United States, whose leadership of the West has again been reaffirmed thanks to the conflict over Ukraine. To main- tain and perhaps even strengthen that leadership against China—a country that Biden defines as being in “competition [with the United States] to win the twenty-first cen- tury”—America stands to benefit greatly from bringing Russia back in from the cold.
- Topic:
- Military Strategy, Leadership, Conflict, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Europe, Ukraine, Asia, North America, and United States of America
14. Lessons from NATO’s intervention in Afghanistan
- Author:
- Benjamin Zyla and Laura Grant
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- AFter US troops began withdrawing from Afghanistan on 1 May 2021, the Taliban launched an offensive to take back control of the country. By August, the militants had retaken con- trol of most (administrative) districts and President Ashraf Ghani and other key officials fled the country. NATO Allies rushed to close nearly all of the military and civilian infrastructure they had built since 2001, and hastily set up air bridges to evacuate their citizens and personnel from Kabul. Most of this was done by the member states while NATO as an organization mainly stood on the fringes. Critics have focused on these events to call for an evaluation of this hasty and uncoordinated withdraw- al, and of the entire Afghan intervention more gener- ally. Among others the NATO Parliamentary Assem- bly called upon member governments and parliaments of the North Atlantic Alliance not only to “conduct a thorough, clear-eyed, and comprehensive assessment of the Alliance’s 20-year engagement in Afghanistan”, but also demanded to incorporate these lessons into “NATO’s New Strategic Concept”.1 This Policy Brief aims to contribute to the lessons learned analysis that will be central to discussions at the NATO Summit this coming June in Spain. We of- fer eight findings and recommendations, based on a four-year long study of the effectiveness of the Af- ghan intervention.2
- Topic:
- NATO, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Military Intervention, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Europe, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
15. A US failure in Ukraine Crisis could lead to a conflagration in Middle East, Asia
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 02-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- China could learn that US determination is melting away, and its threats can be ignored. An attack on Taiwan could follow.
- Topic:
- Military Strategy, Hegemony, Conflict, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America
16. Houthi/Iranian attacks on UAE a response to losses on the Yemen battlefield
- Author:
- Jonathan Spyer
- Publication Date:
- 01-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Incensed by recent government gains in Yemen, the Iranians seek to intimidate the UAE into reversing course. At this juncture, it is therefore vital that both the US and Israel offer support for the UAE’s cause.
- Topic:
- International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Governance, Conflict, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Yemen, North America, United States of America, Gulf Nations, and UAE
17. Will US-Israel ties withstand possible strains due to the Iranian and Palestinian issues?
- Author:
- Eytan Gilboa
- Publication Date:
- 01-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Despite former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim to a 40-year friendship with President Joe Biden, the latter preferred the new government headed by Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Leadership, and Alliance
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America
18. US Policy Towards the Yemeni Conflict Must Change
- Author:
- Eran Lerman
- Publication Date:
- 01-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Re-designating the Houthi movement as a terrorist organization after the drone attack on the UAE is imperative. This, along with overt support for the UAE, would deliver a sharp message and likely have a beneficial effect on Iranian conduct in Vienna.
- Topic:
- Terrorism, Military Strategy, Humanitarian Intervention, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Yemen, North America, and United States of America
19. Counterterrorism from the Sky? How to Think Over the Horizon about Drones
- Author:
- Erol Yayboke and Christopher Reid
- Publication Date:
- 05-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- August 31, 2021, marked the end of the United States’ two-decade military presence in Afghanistan. It also marked the end of U.S. military and intelligence eyes and ears on the ground in a place known to be a safe haven for violent extremist groups. In Afghanistan and other areas where the United States lacks a persistent, physical presence, the Biden administration announced a pivot to “over-the-horizon” counterterrorism operations (OTH- CT) that rely heavily on stand-off assets, such as overhead satellite technology and airpower, in the absence of eyes and ears. While the use of drones—or “remotely piloted aircraft” (RPAs)—to target potential terrorist threats seems to be a cost-effective approach from a military perspective, their use has come under increasing pressure from Capitol Hill, human rights and humanitarian organizations, and others for their effects on civilian populations. Military action almost always carries risk of collateral damage, but the disproportionate civilian impact associated with RPAs is not only troubling from rights and humanitarian perspectives, but it also calls into question the strategic, longer-term rationale of using them for counterterrorism purposes in the first place. Congressional leaders sent a letter to the president on January 20, 2022, about the ongoing OTH-CT strategy review. In it, they point out that “while the intent of U.S. counterterrorism policy may be to target terrorism suspects who threaten U.S. national security, in too many instances, U.S. drone strikes have instead led to unintended and deadly consequences—killing civilians and increasing anger towards the United States.” They, therefore, call on the administration to “review and overhaul U.S. counterterrorism policy to center human rights and the protection of civilians, align with U.S. and international law, prioritize non-lethal tools to address conflict and fragility, and only use force when it is lawful and as a last resort.” Reconciling the risks and implications of RPA strikes is necessary for genuinely implementing President Biden’s calls for a “targeted, precise strategy that goes after terror.” In doing so, the administration also needs to address concerns over civilian casualties alongside meaningful and justifiable military utilization of RPAs. Using RPAs against those who pose an imminent threat to the United States or its allies and partners is sometimes necessary and appropriate, especially in scenarios that are high-risk for crewed aircraft or ground forces. So why wouldn’t the United States use RPAs more broadly at low risk to blood and treasure? Why put soldiers in danger when we can extensively monitor threats and eventually address them from a remotely piloted aircraft high above? The answers are at once simple (e.g., impact on civilians) and complicated (e.g., limited military alternatives), exposing a gulf in understanding and approach to RPA utilization between the advocacy community (and some congressional leaders) and military and intelligence planners. This CSIS brief explores the challenge ahead for the Biden administration. It starts with a contextualization of the OTH-CT strategy review, followed by assessments of the short- and longer-term risks associated with RPA utilization and how to think about risk itself. Offering evidence and framing throughout, the brief ends by detailing two sets of recommendations
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Terrorism, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, and Drones
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
20. What Does $40 Billion in Aid to Ukraine Buy?
- Author:
- Mark F. Cancian
- Publication Date:
- 05-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- Congress has approved $40 billion in aid for Ukraine and other countries affected by the conflict―the sixth aid package since the war began. A major change is that this package looks ahead months rather than weeks. The aid package provides $19 billion for immediate military support to Ukraine, continuing the effort that has been vital to sustaining Ukrainian resistance, and $3.9 billion to sustain U.S. forces deployed to Europe. The package also contains about $16 billion for economic support to Ukraine, global humanitarian relief, and a wide variety of international programs as well as $2 billion for long-term support to NATO allies and DOD modernization programs. Although some elements of the aid package will be available quickly, many will take years to fully implement. This raises questions about why long-term elements could not have gone through the regular congressional authorization and budget processes.
- Topic:
- International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Military Spending, and Military Intervention
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Ukraine, North America, and United States of America
21. The Pillars Necessary for a Strong Domestic Semiconductor Industry
- Author:
- Sujai Shivakumar, Charles Wessner, and Thomas Howell
- Publication Date:
- 05-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- All major U.S. defense systems and platforms rely on semiconductors for their performance, and the erosion of U.S. capabilities in microelectronics is a direct threat to the United States’ ability to defend itself and its allies. The COMPETES and USICA legislation, currently being reconciled in Congress, represents a national strategy to secure U.S. competitiveness and national security in the twenty-first century. Both the House and Senate legislation call for $52 billion to support U.S.-based semiconductor research and production. They also authorize several programs to both expand U.S. semiconductor fabrication capacity and support the continued research and development (R&D) of advanced chips. The key question is how these intentions can best be turned into reality. There are several challenges that the domestic semiconductor industry confronts, such as international competition, capital investment requirements, workforce needs, gaps in the supply chain, and the shortfall in venture capital funding and technical support needed to enable commercialization of promising technologies.
- Topic:
- Security, Military Strategy, Innovation, Industrialization, and Defense Industry
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
22. U.S. Defense Posture in the Middle East
- Author:
- Seth G. Jones and Seamus P. Daniels
- Publication Date:
- 05-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- There are growing calls for a decrease in the U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Proponents of a major reduction of forces argue that it is necessary because of growing competition with China in the Indo-Pacific and Russia in Europe, a declining U.S. reliance on Gulf oil and gas, a reduced threat from terrorist groups, and a need to focus on diplomacy rather than military force. To inform the debate over the United States’ military presence in the Middle East, this report assesses three posture options for U.S. forces in the region. This report finds that the United States should keep a notable but tailored presence in the Middle East to contain the further expansion of Chinese and Russian military power and to check the actions of Iran and terrorist organizations that threaten the United States and its allies and partners.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Rivalry
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
23. U.S. Coast Guard Academy Cultural Competence Assessment
- Author:
- David Chu
- Publication Date:
- 03-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The National Academy of Public Administration
- Abstract:
- The United States Coast Guard (USCG) is widely recognized for its six major operational missions: maritime law enforcement, maritime response, maritime prevention, marine transportation system management, maritime security operations, and defense operations. Since 1876, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy (the Academy) has served as the one location where USCG officers receive their training. The Academy is an accredited military college granting Bachelor of Science degrees in one of nine engineering or professional majors. Graduates earn a commission as an Ensign in the Coast Guard. The impetus for this report is found in the Coast Guard Academy Improvement Act, part of the National Defense Authorization Act of the fiscal year 2021. This legislation called for the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to assess the current state of cultural competence (including diversity, equity, and inclusion) of the Coast Guard Academy’s cadets, faculty, and staff. Cultural competence is defined as the ability to understand, appreciate, and interact with people from cultures and belief systems different from one’s own. It encourages the acknowledgment and acceptance of differences in appearance, behavior, and culture. This assessment by a Panel of NAPA Fellows provides actionable recommendations that, when implemented as an integrated whole, will serve to further develop a healthy environment of cultural competence at this critical institution. As a congressionally chartered, independent, non-partisan, and non-profit organization with over 950 distinguished Fellows, NAPA has a unique ability to bring nationally recognized public administration experts together to help government agencies address challenges. I am deeply appreciative of the work of the five NAPA Fellows who served on this Panel and commend the Study Team that contributed valuable insights and expertise throughout the project. We are grateful for the constructive engagement of many USCG and Academy personnel and cadets who provided important observations and context to inform this report. We also thank representatives of the other federal military service academies for their active contributions to this research. Finally, this report has benefited substantially from input offered by many researchers and practitioners in the field of cultural competence, diversity, equity, and inclusion. I trust that this report will be regarded as an encouragement to leaders at the Coast Guard Academy, as it commends many good practices that are already in practice. It should also serve as an actionable guide to putting necessary policy, procedural, and structural elements in place to further develop cultural competence for all. Doing so will further advance the USCG’s compelling mission.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Maritime
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
24. A Fleeting Glimpse of Hegemony? The War in Ukraine and the Future of the International Leadership of the United States
- Author:
- Ville Sinkkonen
- Publication Date:
- 06-2022
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
- Institution:
- Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
- Abstract:
- Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine has opened up an opportunity for the United States to assert international leadership once again and even recapture some trappings of hegemony, which have been eroded in recent years. As the war has upended the old international order, the Biden administration is facing questions regarding the future direction of America’s global engagement in the “post-February 24, 2022” world. This article zooms in on five sets of challenges that the U.S. needs to deal with if it wants to sustain the “hegemonic moment” brought about by the war in Ukraine. Without attention and resolve to mitigate these challenges, the re-emergence of U.S. leadership in the transatlantic domain, not to mention any visions of reasserting U.S. hegemony more broadly, may prove but a flash in the pan.
- Topic:
- Security, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Leadership
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
25. The Complexity Effect in U.S.-Turkey Relations: The Restructuring of the Middle East Regional Security
- Author:
- Devrim Sahin and Ahmet Sözen
- Publication Date:
- 06-2022
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Uluslararasi Iliskiler
- Institution:
- International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
- Abstract:
- This paper proposes a discussion of its core theoretical argument that the international order is more complex than the theories generated by traditionalist state-centric approaches and critical approaches, including the regional security complex approach. The complexity approach highlights the sensitive dependency of complex systems on the nonlinear feedback loops and dynamic interactions by which the longer term reactions to the behavior of actors could set off actions-reaction spirals. This path dependency is evident in the erosion of U.S.-Turkey relations which is a cause and a consequence of the realignment in the international system and the Middle East regional system.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Turkey, Asia, North America, and United States of America
26. The American Withdrawal from Afghanistan, One Year Later
- Author:
- Yoram Schweitzer and Eldad Shavit
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
- Abstract:
- Global considerations prompted the United States’ decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, not military pressure from the Taliban. This is evident one year after the withdrawal, despite the difficult scenes of the first few days after the Taliban takeover of the capital, Kabul, and the victory celebrations of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Furthermore, at this stage the danger of an international wave of terrorism in the West led by al-Qaeda does not appear to be a concrete and immediate threat. The killing by the United States via an armed UAV of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was hiding in Kabul, has also contributed to the organization's weakness and put it on the defensive. For the US administration and from a long-term perspective, the withdrawal was the right step, which did not harm the United States' superpower standing and even enabled greater attention and resources for coping with the main challenges currently posed by China and Russia.
- Topic:
- Security, Military Strategy, Military Intervention, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
27. Three Reasons Why CHIPS-plus is a Big Win for US National Security
- Author:
- Tom Klein
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- On August 9th, 2022, President Biden signed vital bipartisan legislation to compete with China. H.R. 4346, called the CHIPS and Science Act or “CHIPS-plus,” would pave the way for nearly $280 billion in incentives to boost US-based chip manufacturing, scientific research, technology standards setting, and STEM education. These initiatives directly protect our immediate security vulnerabilities in the US military and support our long-term national security competition with China by promoting democratic norms and spurring critical defense innovations.
- Topic:
- Security, National Security, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Innovation, and CHIPS
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
28. Rising Anti-China Sentiment in South Korea Offers Opportunities To Strengthen US-ROK Relations
- Author:
- Haneul Lee, Alan Yu, and Tobias Harris
- Publication Date:
- 08-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- The Yoon administration’s posture toward China has important implications for the U.S.-ROK alliance and America’s strategic approach in the region
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Bilateral Relations, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America
29. How the United States Should Respond if Russia Invades Ukraine
- Author:
- Max Bergmann
- Publication Date:
- 01-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- A Russian invasion of Ukraine must come at a high cost to the Kremlin.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Ukraine, North America, and United States of America
30. Keeping Secrets
- Author:
- Henry Sokolski
- Publication Date:
- 05-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Nonproliferation Policy Education Center
- Abstract:
- With Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Americans have had a ringside seat at one of the most unusual of presidential shows: President Joe Biden publicly divulging some of our nation’s most protected, secret insights on what Vladimir Putin and his military might be planning. Some have criticized this; most think it has prevented Putin from controlling the war’s narrative. If we are lucky, it could be part of a more important movement toward liberalizing the use and sharing of intelligence. America and its allies could finally be progressing from a vision of war first theorized a hundred years ago. That violent and indiscriminate vision was fully realized with the city-busting aerial attacks of World War II. Ever since, we have believed that being able to decimate a nation’s military, industrial, and demographic capital promises deterrence in peace and quick victories in war. Today, this vision is being slowly supplanted with weaponry and tactics that can target terror precisely, in order to disable nations without decimating them.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Classification, and Secrecy
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
31. US global security partnerships in the Biden era: Twilight or regeneration?
- Author:
- Eoin Micheál McNamara
- Publication Date:
- 07-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Finnish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- Guarantee-based alliances underpinned US grand strategy during the Cold War, but policies designed for the War on Drugs (WOD) after the 1990s, the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in the 2000s, and counter-piracy operations in the 2010s have led US policymakers to increasingly rely on ad hoc security partnerships. Looser partnerships facilitate cooperation that is quick to reform and redistribute, benefiting the US when reacting to urgent risks. When the necessity for cooperation diminishes, partnerships allow for prompt “exit options”. Guided by a narrowing set of strategic priorities under President Biden, the US partnership network is undergoing some downsizing. As part of a wider effort to challenge the US-led international order, Russia and China seek to reduce US opportunities to renew security partnerships. Ever closer US and NATO partnerships with Finland and Sweden have bucked an otherwise weakening global trend in recent years. Russia’s escalated aggression in Ukraine has caused Finland and Sweden to seek policy change from partnership-based security policies to NATO membership and stronger deterrence.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
32. Stop Fighting Blind: Better Use-of-Force Oversight in the U.S. Congress
- Author:
- International Crisis Group
- Publication Date:
- 10-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- International Crisis Group
- Abstract:
- The U.S. constitution divides war powers between the executive and legislative branches, so as to ensure that decisions about using force are collective and deliberative. Lawmakers’ role has receded, however, particularly in recent decades. Small steps would help them start reclaiming their prerogatives.
- Topic:
- Military Strategy, Legislation, Civil-Military Relations, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
33. The Iran Nuclear Deal at Six: Now or Never
- Author:
- International Crisis Group
- Publication Date:
- 01-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- International Crisis Group
- Abstract:
- After all is said and done, the Iran nuclear deal struck in 2015 remains the best way to achieve the West’s non-proliferation goals and the sanctions relief that Tehran seeks. The parties must not squander what is likely their last chance to save the accord.
- Topic:
- Security, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Nuclear Power, and JCPOA
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
34. NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept: Matching Ambition with Reality
- Author:
- Jonny Hall and Hugh Sandeman
- Publication Date:
- 10-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- LSE IDEAS
- Abstract:
- This Strategic Update is based on a discussion hosted by LSE IDEAS in July 2022 on NATO’s 2030 Strategic Concept. Participants in the discussion included: General Sir James Everard, Gordon Barrass, General Sir Richard Barrons, Lt Gen Giles Hill, ProfessorChristopher Coker, Dr Luca Tardelli, Marissa Kemp, Tom McKane, and Peter Watkins. This Strategic Update reflects points made during the discussion, but no participant is in any way committed to its specific content, and the views expressed here are attributable solely to the authors. The Strategic Concept is the first since 2010 and was redrafted throughout a fundamentally different geopolitical and security context—following the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and subsequent full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. This Update addresses the Concept’s recognition of necessary strategic realignment, with NATO’s widening in both its defence commitments and geographic focus on China, as well as its ambiguity in regards to practical military strategy, deterrence, and endpoint of the war in Ukraine.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Military Strategy, Geopolitics, Deterrence, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Europe, and United States of America
35. Everything Counts: Building a Control Regime for Nonstrategic Nuclear Warheads in Europe
- Author:
- Miles A. Pomper, William Alberque, Marshall L. Brown Jr., William M. Moon, and Nikolai Sokov
- Publication Date:
- 05-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
- Abstract:
- Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration insisted in arms control talks with Russia that a follow-on agreement to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) should cover all nuclear weapons and that such an agreement should focus on the nuclear warheads themselves. This would represent a significant change from previous agreements, which focused on delivery vehicles, such as missiles. The United States has been particularly interested in potential limits on nonstrategic nuclear warheads (NSNW). Such weapons have never been subject to an arms control agreement. Because Russia possesses an advantage in the number of such weapons, the US Senate has insisted that negotiators include them in a future agreement, making their inclusion necessary if such an accord is to win Senate approval and ultimately be ratified by Washington. In the wake of Russian nuclear threats in the Ukraine conflict, such demands can only be expected to grow if and when US and Russian negotiators return to the negotiating table.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Treaties and Agreements, Military Strategy, and Nonproliferation
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America
36. Reframing U.S. Military Strategy Toward Africa
- Author:
- John Griswold
- Publication Date:
- 12-2022
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Fletcher Security Review
- Institution:
- The Fletcher School, Tufts University
- Abstract:
- How can the U.S. military best support the achievement of national strategic objectives in Africa? While much of the foreign policy discourse since President Biden’s inauguration has focused on China’s growing military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific, curbing the effects of climate change, and the implications of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, scant attention has been paid to U.S. engagement in Africa. It is noteworthy that the Biden administration’s Interim National Security Strategic Guidance (INSSG) mentions a continent of more than 1.3 billion people — whose population is expected to double by 2050 — in one paragraph out of 23 substantive pages...
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, and Strategic Engagement
- Political Geography:
- Africa and United States of America
37. The Cyber Sea: Conflict and Security
- Author:
- Kevin Doherty
- Publication Date:
- 09-2022
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of Advanced Military Studies
- Institution:
- Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
- Abstract:
- The interchange that drives world economics in the past now intersects with and will rest on the electromagnetic spectrum’s (EMS) structure that includes cyberspace. Historically, the world’s oceans played this crucial role in great power competition, but today that key geography now sits within the EMS’s exponential exchange in services between nations for maximal productivity output in free and open markets. The U.S. military must help sustain these crucial lines of communication to channel the spirit and capacity of their nation’s people into the new activities that war calls for and efficiently employ them against a threat. Sea lines of communication were of foremost importance in this regard until now, when the EMS, tapped by cyberspace, connects the most amount of people and their productivity to win the next conflict. Cyberspace has consumed the sea.
- Topic:
- Communications, Military Strategy, Cybersecurity, Seapower, and Non-Traditional Threats
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus and United States of America
38. Allies through Thick and Thin: U.S. Navy Strategic Communication, 1986-1994, in Transatlantic Context
- Author:
- Jon-Wyatt Matlack
- Publication Date:
- 09-2022
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of Advanced Military Studies
- Institution:
- Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
- Abstract:
- From 1986 to 1994, U.S. Navy declassified strategy documents necessarily shifted in both form and function as the Cold War ended. However, this transition also evidenced a diminished inclusion of allied navies in the Navy’s strategic conceptions. Departing from the global deterrence in the maritime strategy and pivoting toward the power projection in “. . . From the Sea,” an aloofness to alliances emerged. Reflecting on this period through the example of Germany, U.S. naval strategy will be shown to be made more “whole” when it more overtly accounts for allied naval partnership.
- Topic:
- NATO, Military Strategy, Navy, Maritime, Alliance, and Deterrence
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
39. The US Defense Establishment’s Role in Shaping American Regional Strategy
- Author:
- Eran Lerman
- Publication Date:
- 07-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Israel offers the US military and, even more so, the intelligence community critical support. For example, the US Army has gained through the acquisition of the Iron Dome missile defense system, tank technology such as reactive armor, solutions to the challenge of terrorist improvised explosive devices, mine-clearing devices, and much more. In turn, the US defense establishment –specifically CENTCOM, now that Israel is in its area of responsibility – increasingly reflects Israeli perspectives in Washington policy debates. This has recently been the case on Iran.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Bilateral Relations, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
40. It is in America’s Interest to End the War in Ukraine
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 12-2022
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Continuing the war harms the West and endangers its battle to attain other critical strategic objectives.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Ukraine, North America, and United States of America
41. The Lessons of the Afghan War That No One Will Want to Learn
- Author:
- Anthony H. Cordesman
- Publication Date:
- 06-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- At the best of times, the U.S. tends to rush out heavily politicized studies of the lessons of war that are more political ammunition than serious analyses, and while these are followed by long formal studies that are often quite good, they then are often ignored as the flow of events moves on. These are scarcely the best of times. The collapse of the Afghan government and forces has occurred during one of the most partisan periods in American politics, followed by a totally different kind of conflict in Ukraine, all while the U.S. focus on terrorism and regional conflicts that began with 9/11 has been replaced by a focus on competition with nuclear superpowers like Russia and China. The very fact that the war stretched out over two decades has meant that much of the focus on lessons has ignored the first half or more of the war, and the almost inevitable chaos following the U.S. decision to withdraw has led to the focus on the collapse of the Afghan forces and the central government rather than on the actual conduct of the war – and few within the U.S. government now want to rake over the list of past mistakes that turned an initial tactical victory into a massive grand strategic defeat.
- Topic:
- Security, Military Strategy, Military Affairs, and Strategic Stability
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
42. The Collapse of One China
- Author:
- Ivan Kanapathy
- Publication Date:
- 06-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- As the One China policy accommodation unravels and China’s military attains a credible capability to mount a cross-strait invasion, the United States and its allies should stop hedging and adopt enhanced measures to deter Beijing.
- Topic:
- Security, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Rivalry
- Political Geography:
- China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America
43. North America Is a Region, Too: An Integrated, Phased, and Affordable Approach to Air and Missile Defense for the Homeland
- Author:
- Tom Karako, Matthew Strohmeyer, Wes Rumbaugh, and Ken Harmon
- Publication Date:
- 07-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- U.S. air and missile defense efforts have long been characterized by a striking dichotomy. Defenses for the homeland have largely focused on long-range ballistic threats, while cruise missile defense and other air defense efforts have focused on regional and force protection applications to the exclusion of the homeland. This compartmentalization assumes that battles in one place will only consist of certain parts of the threat spectrum, and battles elsewhere will consist only of others. That lingering dichotomy creates a vulnerability that near-peer adversaries now seek to exploit. In a sense, the homeland-regional dichotomy ignores the fact that North America is a region, too. As with any other region, attacks on assets in North America could be designed to shape the political and military calculus of U.S. policymakers. This report explores the strategic significance of air and missile defense for the homeland, considers principles informing defense design, and develops and costs an architecture based on those principles.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Homeland Security, and Missile Defense
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
44. Software-Defined Warfare: Architecting the DOD's Transition to the Digital Age
- Author:
- Nand Mulchandani and John Shanahan
- Publication Date:
- 09-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- The U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) massive bureaucracy struggles with the kind of periodic “tech refresh” that has been instrumental to commercial industry success. While it is insulated from market competition within the U.S. economy, the DOD is not immune from the kind of revolutionary, secular, and wide-ranging technological changes happening outside the government. Nor is it immune from the threat of competition with other militaries around the world. In the future, warfighting will only become more complex, even more chaotic, and even faster. The only way for the DOD to stay competitive in a new warfighting environment is to ensure that it uses the most potent weapon available: technology, and more specifically, software. For the United States to retain its dominant position in the future— which is not a guaranteed outcome—the DOD needs a new design and architecture that will allow it to be far more flexible, scale on demand, and adapt dynamically to changing conditions. And it must do so at a dramatically lower cost as it delivers its critical services. This paper provides a blueprint for the way forward.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, War, Military Strategy, Digitalization, and Software
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
45. The CNO’s Navigation Plan for 2022: A Critique
- Author:
- Anthony H. Cordesman
- Publication Date:
- 09-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- There should be a clear difference between efforts to provide unclassified documents that explain and justify U.S. military forces and issuing official reports that are little more than public relations exercises. The U.S. faces major security challenges and the annual cost of U.S. defense is over $760 billion, even if one ignores the cost of nuclear weapons, the Veterans Administration, related activities of the State Department and other agencies, and substantial additional intelligence activity. The effort to shape U.S. forces and strategy must deal with very real threats. They include a Russia that has invaded the Ukraine, a China that is actively seeking to challenge the U.S. in military and economic power, and regional threats like Iran and North Korea. The U.S. must cope with emerging and disruptive technologies that constantly alter the nature of military forces in unexpected ways, support America’s strategic partners on a global level, and deal with near collapse of many arms control efforts and major increases in Russian and Chinese nuclear and long-range strike programs. Far too often, however, the Department of Defense issues documents that are little more than sales pitches – filled with slogans, and that are an awkward cross between a shipping list that borders on being a child’s letter to Santa Claus and a used car commercial. The CNO’s Navigation Plan for 2022 is a case in point. In fairness, does highlight a long list of important points about the threat, and the need to reshape U.S. naval forces, but it comes far too close to burying them in overall and hype. It fails to meaningfully address and justify the cost of the U.S. Navy, to provide any clear picture of the threat, to address the need to cooperate with key U.S. allies, and to provide a clear program for shaping the Navy’s future. It is scarcely unique in failing to provide a clear and meaningful plan. The defense budget requests talk about being strategic documents, but almost all of their contents are shopping lists for individual military services. U.S. strategy documents have become little more than long lists of broad goals and wish lists with no actual plan, program, or budget.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Public Relations
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
46. Keeping the U.S. Military Engine Edge: Budget and Contract Trends
- Author:
- Gregory Sanders and Nicholas Velazquez
- Publication Date:
- 10-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- Military aircraft engine technology is a qualitative edge for the United States, one enabled by a world-leading industrial base. However, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) faces critical decisions regarding the future of engine investments and the industrial base of the F-35. This platform dominates present U.S. tactical aircraft purchases and faces a growing engine modernization imperative. The following questions help inform key debates: How does the DOD prioritize investments in engines compared to other systems? Where is investment targeted? And how can competition best be fostered? Recent years have shown a spike in the purchase of products for military engines amid a decline in research and development (R&D) spending relative to the early 2000s. Military engine R&D is now largely dependent on the Air Force, as the Navy has taken a step back to focus funding on other service priorities. Finally, competition for military engine contract spending has been on the decline as the F-35, with its single-engine option, dominates the procurement landscape. The future of the military engine industrial base will be shaped by the DOD’s choice between spending more up front to introduce competition into the fifth-generation fighter fleet or waiting until the end of this decade as the first sixth-generation fighter is expected to enter production.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Science and Technology, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
47. A World in Crisis: The “Winter Wars” of 2022–2023
- Author:
- Anthony H. Cordesman and Paul Cormarie
- Publication Date:
- 11-2022
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- t is obvious that the world now faces a wide range of potential wars and crises. What is far less obvious is the level of confrontation between the U.S. and its strategic partners with both Russia and China, the rising levels of other types of violence that are emerging on a global level, how serious these wars and crises can become, and what kind of future could eventually emerge out of so many different crises, confrontations and conflicts, and trends. These issues are addressed in depth in a new analysis by the Emeritus Chair in Strategy at the CSIS entitled A World in Crisis: The “Winter Wars” of 2022–2023. This analysis explores the risk on the basis that war does not have to mean actual military conflict. Here, it is important to note that avoiding or minimizing combat is scarcely peace. As Sun Tzu pointed out in the Art of War well over 2,000 years ago, “war” does not have to involve the use of military force or any form of actual combat. His statement that “the supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting” applies to every form of major military confrontation and gray area warfare between opposing powers. It recognizes that it is all too easy to predict dire outcomes from the War in Ukraine, the current arms races with Russia and China, and growing levels of violence and confrontation between other states. There is still a case, however, for examining the broader impact of the war, the growing intensity of the arms races with Russia and China, and the current overall patterns of global conflict as the world enters the winter of 2022-2023. It is already clear that this will be a deeply troubled winter in many areas of the globe, that the level of confrontation between major powers has risen sharply, that they do seek to subdue the enemy without fighting, and their rivalry has become the equivalent of political and economic warfare. It is equally clear that the wide range of lower-level conflicts between other powers, their civil wars, and the abuses many governments commit against their own citizens are also intensifying, although many of these conflicts have been going on in some form for years or even decades. In far too many cases, the world is not moving toward peace. It is moving towards repression and war. Accordingly, this analysis argues that the world already faces a series of possible and ongoing “Winter Wars” in 2022-2023 that may not escalate to open military conflict but that are wars at the political and economic level and in competition to build-up more lethal military forces both for deterrence and to exert political leverage. It also shows that these “Wars” already pose serious risks and could escalate sharply and in unpredictable ways for at least the next five to ten years.
- Topic:
- Security, Military Strategy, Rivalry, and Competition
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America
48. Unknown Knowns How the Bush Administration Traded Failure for Success in Iraq
- Author:
- David Cortright, George A. Lopez, and Alistair Millar
- Publication Date:
- 07-2022
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Fourth Freedom Forum
- Abstract:
- This is the story of a road not taken, how the United States discarded a proven system of United Nations weapons inspections and multilateral sanctions and opted for an unnecessary war in Iraq. The saga of what happened twenty years ago may seem like ancient history to some, but many negative consequences are still evident. From the imposition of sanctions on Iraq in 1990 until the calamitous invasion in 2003, our research team produced a steady stream of reports and publications documenting the most significant policy failure by the United States since the Vietnam War.1 With the twentieth anniversary of the invasion approaching, it is time for a fresh look at those events to assess the strategic and ethical implications of the decisions made then and their relevance for today. George W. Bush was gripped by a messianic zeal to overthrow Saddam Hussein by force.2 The president and his advisers were determined to implement a policy of armed regime change regardless of all evidence, logic, or reason.3 The White House concocted a false narrative of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a dictator with supposed links to al-Qaida.4 Bush ignored the unequivocal conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community that Iraq had nothing to do with either 9/11 or al-Qaida.5 The result of the administration’s campaign of deception was a costly war of choice that ended in “strategic defeat,” to cite the conclusion of the U.S. Army history of the war.6 Many studies have examined what went wrong in Iraq,7 but few have looked at the alternative security approaches that were available at the time. We examine those alternatives here to document that the war was unnecessary and to highlight the policy advantages of multilateral nonmilitary security strategies.
- Topic:
- Security, Military Strategy, Multilateralism, Iraq War, and George W. Bush
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
49. US-Russian Contention in Cyberspace: Are Rules of the Road Necessary or Possible?
- Author:
- Pavel Sharikov
- Publication Date:
- 06-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
- Abstract:
- In recent years, as news of U.S.-Russian tensions in the cyber domain has dominated headlines, some strategic thinkers have pointed to the need for a bilateral cyber “rules of the road” agreement. American political scientist Joseph Nye, a former head of the U.S. National Intelligence Council, wrote in 2019 that, even “if traditional arms-control treaties are unworkable” in cyberspace, “it may still be possible to set limits on certain types of civilian targets, and to negotiate rough rules of the road that minimize conflict.” Robert G. Papp, a former director of the CIA’s Center for Cyber Intelligence, has likewise argued that “even a cyber treaty of limited duration with Russia would be a significant step forward.” On the Russian side, President Vladimir Putin himself has called for “a bilateral intergovernmental agreement on preventing incidents in the information space,” comparing it to the Soviet-American Agreement on the Prevention of Incidents on and Over the High Seas. Amid joint Russian-U.S. efforts, the Working Group on the Future of U.S.-Russia Relations recommended several elements of an agreement in 2016, among them that Russia and the U.S. agree “on the types of information that are to be shared in the event of a cyberattack” (akin to responses to a bio-weapons attack) and prohibit both “automatic retaliation in cases of cyberattacks” and “attacks on elements of another nation’s core internet infrastructure.” Most recently, in June 2021, a group of U.S., Russian and European foreign-policy officials and experts called for “cyber nuclear ‘rules of the road.’”
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Cybersecurity, Conflict, and Cyberspace
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America
50. Restoring and Improving Nuclear Forensics to Support Attribution and Deterrence
- Author:
- Steve Fetter
- Publication Date:
- 12-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM)
- Abstract:
- Nuclear forensics is the analysis of nuclear materials, devices, emissions, and signals to determine the origin and history of those nuclear materials and devices. At the request of the Secretary of Energy, and in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, Restoring and Improving Nuclear Forensics to Support Attribution and Deterrence evaluates the U.S. government's nuclear forensics capabilities. A 2010 National Academies report, Nuclear Forensics: A Capability at Risk, characterized the precarious state of the national technical nuclear forensics (NTNF) program at that time: NTNF relied almost entirely on staff dedicated to and residual funding from other related programs. This summary report addresses the current state of U.S. NTNF capabilities relative to the National Academies evaluation in 2010 and recommends ways to improve the NTNF program through improvements in policy, operations, and research and development efforts.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Deterrence
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
51. The US Strategy for Short-Term Military Artificial Intelligence Development (2020-2030)
- Author:
- Daniel Barreiros and Italo Barreto Poty
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- AUSTRAL: Brazilian Journal of Strategy International Relations
- Institution:
- Postgraduate Program in International Strategic Studies, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul
- Abstract:
- This article analyses the US Department of Defense initiative formalized in the Summary of the 2018 Department of Defense Artificial Intelligence Strategy. The conclusion is that the US emphasis on the use of artificial intelligence to expand C4ISR capabilities (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance) and the denunciation of “ethical risks’’ involving Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS) are narrative strategies aimed at dealing in the short term with the inability of the US technology agencies to master autonomous military platform technologies and with the Russian resolve on the development of these lethal autonomous military platforms.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Development, Military Strategy, Innovation, Artificial Intelligence, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
52. What to Expect from Biden in the Middle East
- Author:
- William B. Quandt
- Publication Date:
- 02-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Cairo Review of Global Affairs
- Institution:
- School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, American University in Cairo
- Abstract:
- A Biden administration is likely to rewrite a lot of Trump’s Middle East policies, but the Israel-Palestine issue may not be a priority.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Leadership
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, and United States of America
53. Starr Forum: US, Afghanistan, 9/11: Finished or Unfinished Business?
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Chair: Barry Posen, Ford International Professor of Political Science, MIT. He studies US grand strategy and national security policy. His most recent book is Restraint: A New Foundation for US Grand Strategy. Panelists: Juan Cole, Richard P Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History, University of Michigan. He is an expert on the modern Middle East, Muslim South Asia, and social and intellectual history. His most recent book is Muhammad: Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires. Carol Saivetz, Senior Advisor, MIT Security Studies Program. She is an expert on Soviet and now Russian foreign policy issues; and on topics ranging from energy politics in the Caspian and Black Sea regions, questions of stability in Central Asia, to Russian policy toward Iran. Vanda Felbab-Brown, Senior Fellow, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology, Brookings. She is the director of the Initiative on Nonstate Armed Actors and the co-director of the Africa Security Initiative. She recently co-authored The fate of women’s rights in Afghanistan. She received her PhD from MIT.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, State Building, and Intervention
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
54. Responses to 9-11: The United States, Europe, and the Middle East
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Reflections on the One-Year Anniversary of 9/11
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Terrorism, Military Strategy, and Counter-terrorism
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
55. Biden’s nuclear posture review: what's in it for NATO?
- Author:
- Andrea Chiampan
- Publication Date:
- 12-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- The Biden administration has formally start- ed a review of the US nuclear weapons poli- cy known as Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The NPR is a public policy document that each US administration has published since 1994 during the first months in office and that is scheduled to be released in 2022. NPRs are important public statements: they set out the administration’s views on the role of nuclear weapons in US grand strategy. NPRs are also crucial signalling documents. They provide insight into an administration’s understanding of the prevailing geo- political environment – including perceived risks and threats – and convey US intentions to allies and adver- saries alike. Given NATO’s significant reliance on US extended deterrence, the elements of continuity and change that the new NPR will propose will inevitably have direct effects on NATO’s defence posture.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Leadership
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North America, and United States of America
56. The US in NATO: adapting the Alliance to new strategic priorities
- Author:
- Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer and Martin Quencez
- Publication Date:
- 10-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- At the June 2021 NATO Summit, Allies agreed that “[we] will engage China with a view to de- fending the security interests of the Alliance”, as “China’s stated ambitions and assertive behaviour present systemic challenges to the rules-based inter- national order and to areas relevant to Alliance securi- ty”. For Washington, it was a win to have NATO, the cornerstone of the United States’ network of alliances, acknowledge the challenge posed by China and expand the Alliance’s predominantly transatlantic focus. During his visit to Europe in Spring 2021, President Biden signalled that “America was back” with a clear vision for NATO and that he was seeking European partners’ support. The US President’s recommitment to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty is premised on the expectation that NATO address the country’s current and future strategic concerns, in a security and geopolitical environment that has dramatically changed these last twenty years. China, technological competi- tion, climate change, and hybrid threats and their desta- bilizing effects on NATO member states’ political co- hesion, are now at the core of the US strategic agenda. These priorities redefine NATO’s purpose. In this con- text, NATO’s new Strategic Concept, to be presented in 2022, aims at addressing these very changes, espe- cially as the Alliance enters the post-Afghanistan era. The US objectives vis-à-vis NATO are threefold. In the short term, the Biden administration seeks to re- engage with NATO as part of a larger effort to work with Allies around the world. US public opinion is clearly supportive of the Alliance across political affiliations, despite the politicization of the debate under the Trump administration. In the longer term, NATO will remain relevant to the US, only if it contributes to the strategic competition against China. This can take different forms and re- quire moving beyond two decades of out-of-area oper- ations to tackle challenges of a broad nature, especially in the cyber and techno- logical realms. Finally, the US aims to continue work on struc- tural issues within the Alliance, such as bur- den-sharing and political cohesion, whilst devel- oping a new partnership agenda that better fits its priorities. To sum up, NATO will remain a “global alliance” shaped by the US global strategic priorities, and will continue to strengthen its engagement with “global partners” as the increasingly complex security environment requires transregional approaches.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North America, and United States of America
57. The Iran Nuclear Deal at Five: A Revival?
- Author:
- International Crisis Group
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- International Crisis Group
- Abstract:
- The 2015 nuclear deal enters 2021 clinging to life, having survived the Trump administration’s withdrawal and Iran’s breaches of its commitments. When the Biden administration takes office, Washington and Tehran should move quickly and in parallel to revive the agreement on its original terms.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Denuclearization
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
58. Improving Joint Operational Concept Development within the U.S. Department of Defense
- Author:
- Paul Benfield and Greg Grant
- Publication Date:
- 10-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
- Abstract:
- For the first time in nearly four decades, the DoD is developing joint warfighting concepts designed to counter advanced military rivals—specifically China and Russia. The last such effort took place at the height of the Cold War in the late 1970s and early 1980s to address the strategic and operational challenges posed by the Soviet Union’s conventional advantage on Europe’s Central Front. Now, as the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) emphasizes, the joint force must “prioritize preparedness for war” which includes developing “innovative operational concepts” for military advantage.1 As operational concepts are fundamentally visions of future war that guide future force design and development, the joint force first must answer the question of how it intends to fight future wars before it tries to answer questions of what it needs to fight with. Yet, if the DoD is going to move to “joint concept driven, threat informed capability development,” it faces a considerable challenge in that its joint concept development and experimentation process is fundamentally broken.2 While the post–Cold War era has witnessed repeated efforts to develop joint operational concepts, the process fails to yield innovative warfighting approaches to guide future force and capability development. Instead, the process produces concepts that seem almost intentionally designed not to drive significant change. These concepts are not truly “joint,” but rather lowest-common-denominator assemblages of existing service concepts that privilege service priorities. Any innovative joint ideas that make it through the development process are so watered-down and vague that they fail to provoke change (and thus threaten the interests of key stakeholders). In this environment, individual service concepts win out over joint concepts and drive investment priorities. However, warfighting concepts and critical investments must be joint because the services have become increasingly interdependent at the operational level.3 Moreover, current wargaming and analysis suggest that this operational interdependence will be a critical aspect of future conflict with a highly-capable peer adversary such as China or Russia—whether as a strength or a weakness remains to be seen. One can expect an advanced, adaptive adversary to seek out any gaps and seams presented by the U.S. military and exploit those to its advantage. In this regard, the current joint force is not “joint” enough for a high-end war against a peer adversary that has developed counters to critical, long-standing U.S. operational advantages such as air, maritime, and information dominance. As this paper discusses, successfully waging war at the scale and intensity that a conflict with a peer rival would entail will demand entirely new ways of warfighting that in turn will require a forcing function that integrates individual service capabilities into an actual “joint” fighting force. Recent efforts to develop threat-focused joint warfighting concepts—if successful—represents the best chance for that result actually to occur. This paper briefly discusses three past attempts by the DoD to develop joint concepts, including AirLand Battle, Air-Sea Battle, and a more recent effort, the Advanced Capabilities and Deterrence Panel (ACDP). It uses these examples to showcase the challenges of overcoming stovepiped and parochial service-led efforts and to illustrate the drawbacks of building service-centric concepts and covering them with a patina of jointness. These cases highlight how the persistent pathologies of the joint concept development process have rendered post–Cold War joint concepts useless for encouraging operational innovation or driving change in service investment priorities. Ongoing work to develop new joint warfighting concepts provides the DoD with a long-overdue opportunity to focus its concept development on tangible threats and consequent operational objectives. The current effort is the first time in decades that the DoD is organizing concept development around countering a specific threat instead of supporting idealized notions of how the joint force preferred to operate against vague or undefined groups of adversaries. However, without major changes to what is widely viewed as a consensus process that does not foster a competition of ideas, the DoD risks repeating the same concept development mistakes it has made in the past. Additionally, new joint concepts must be rigorously tested and refined through a campaign of experimentation to validate their viability for future force design. That experimentation piece is currently missing.4 The Joint Staff is trying to rebuild its joint concept development capability after years of neither prioritizing nor adequately resourcing that work. Generating truly new ways of warfighting with the potential to transform future force design will require the sustained attention of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS and VCJCS) to push new joint concepts through the system. The DoD’s senior leadership must overcome the tendency of each service to drive toward consensus products that are aimed more at protecting existing priorities and longstanding prerogatives than generating creative ideas.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, War, Military Strategy, and Military Affairs
- Political Geography:
- Russia, China, North America, and United States of America
59. Overkill: Reforming the Legal Basis for the U.S. War on Terror
- Author:
- International Crisis Group
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- International Crisis Group
- Abstract:
- After the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Congress passed a use of force authorisation that successive presidents have used to expand military action ever further. As part of our series The Legacy of 9/11 and the “War on Terror”, we argue that Washington should enact a new statute that promotes transparency and narrows the war’s scope.
- Topic:
- Terrorism, Military Strategy, War on Terror, and Civil-Military Relations
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
60. The Poison Frog Strategy: Preventing a Chinese Fait Accompli Against Taiwanese Islands
- Author:
- Chris Dougherty, Jennie Matuschak, and Ripley Hunter
- Publication Date:
- 10-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
- Abstract:
- How could Taiwan and the United States respond if China seized one of Taiwan’s outlying islands, such as Pratas/Dongsha (hereafter Dongsha) in the South China Sea? Whereas the U.S. national security community has focused on defending Taiwan against Chinese invasion, China’s recent military activities suggest that this kind of coercion and limited aggression might be an equally urgent question. More worryingly, such a scenario could be a prelude or pathway to war involving China, Taiwan, and the United States. To explore potential policy and strategy options to prevent such a calamity, the Gaming Lab at CNAS wargamed this scenario with Taiwanese, American, and regional experts. Worryingly, the game found few credible options for pushing China to abandon Dongsha and return to the status quo. However, the game found numerous areas where preparation and multilateral coordination—particularly in concert with Japan—could deter limited Chinese aggression against Taiwan. During the game, the teams representing the United States and Taiwan struggled to compel a Chinese withdrawal from Dongsha without escalating the crisis. The team representing China avoided further escalation given its first-mover advantage, constrained territorial gains, and geographic proximity. In contrast, the U.S. team had to push its forces far forward in ways that were risky and would be difficult to sustain.1 Punitive non-military options, such as economic sanctions or information campaigns, took too long to produce effects and appeared too weak to compel China to abandon its gains.2 More aggressive military responses risked escalation to war, which both the U.S. and Taiwan teams wished to avoid. With few viable coercive options and the onus of escalation falling on the U.S. and Taiwan teams, the game reaffirmed the difficulty of rolling back territorial aggression of this kind. Indeed, discouraging China from seizing Taiwanese territory before it happens is the most salient lesson of the game. The United States and Taiwan must begin coordinating today to build a credible deterrent against limited Chinese aggression or coercion toward Taiwan.3 Doing so will help identify ways to make a territorial fait accompli by China—such as the seizure of Dongsha—too unpalatable to consider, while also communicating the U.S. commitment to defending Taiwan. This strategy will require advance planning and communication of joint responses and defenses against coercion and territorial aggression. Rather than scrambling to respond to a fait accompli, as occurred in this game, the United States and Taiwan should prepare to implement coordinated, whole-of-government deterrent measures quickly and ensure immediate consequences for Chinese coercion or aggression short of war. Japan’s cooperation is essential in this type of scenario because it could change China’s calculations of the military and diplomatic risks of coercion or aggression. A joint statement from Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga and U.S. President Joseph R. Biden in April 2021 referenced “peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait” and encouraged “the peaceful resolution of cross-Strait issues.”4 The United States would rely heavily on Japan for basing infrastructure to conduct military operations to support Taiwan.5 And, although the statement did not elaborate further, unambiguous Japanese support will be necessary to create a regional, as opposed to bilateral U.S.-Taiwan, response to Chinese coercion or aggression. Specifically, Japan’s involvement could enable coordination with India and Australia via the Quad relationships.6 It could also create opportunities to work with other states facing Chinese coercion and territorial aggression, such as Vietnam and the Philippines. Wargames are not predictive, but they are useful tools for exploring decision-making and identifying vulnerabilities. As China’s assertiveness rises, failure to prepare for the threat of an incursion against Taiwanese territory presents grave risks to Indo-Pacific security. The United States, Taiwan, and regional allies and partners can better understand how to build an effective deterrence strategy to discourage Chinese aggression or coercion through multilateral gaming, to include crisis simulations and exercises.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, National Security, Military Strategy, and War Games
- Political Geography:
- China, Taiwan, and United States of America
61. When Less Is More: Rethinking U.S. Military Strategy and Posture in the Middle East
- Author:
- Ilan Goldenberg, Becca Wasser, Elisa Catalano Ewers, and Lilly Blumenthal
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
- Abstract:
- For the past 20 years, the U.S. military has invested heavily in the Middle East. Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump both attempted to shift assets out of the region and put a greater focus on the Indo-Pacific, but both were drawn back into the Middle East. Now, President Joe Biden again has put an emphasis on the Indo-Pacific, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin has emphasized the importance of China as the Department of Defense’s “pacing challenge.” Effectively realizing the new administration’s shift in priority—and avoiding the cycle of drawing forces out of the Middle East only to have new crises pull them back in—requires an assessment of how the United States can continue to protect its core interests in the Middle East with a smaller and smarter footprint. This paper is the beginning of an effort to answer this question. It methodically outlines what key U.S. interests and objectives should be in the Middle East to develop the appropriate U.S. force posture to meet the security challenges of today and tomorrow. It then describes the key military activities necessary to protect those interests and achieve those objectives, in some cases breaking old assumptions and identifying areas where the United States can afford to accept more risk. Finally, it begins to outline the associated military assets necessary to pursue those activities and ends by identifying areas where the United States can look to alter its presence and activities in the region. The conclusion of this analysis is that the United States still has vital interests in the Middle East that require a level of military investment in the region. However, those interests are more limited, and the United States must be willing to accept more risk in the Middle East while also prioritizing non-military tools. Given challenges and strategic interests elsewhere in the world and at home, it is time to consider how the United States might approach force posture in the region differently than in the past.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, National Security, Military Strategy, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Middle East and United States of America
62. Military cooperation between Serbia and the USA: dynamically under the public radar
- Author:
- Marija Ignjatijevic
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Belgrade Centre for Security Policy
- Abstract:
- Military cooperation between Serbia and the United States is the topic of the latest analysis by BCBP researcher Maria Ignjatijevic. Serbia and the United States have had intensive cooperation in the field of security and defense for years, members of the armed forces have participated in over 70 military exercises in the last ten years, and the United States is one of the largest donors to the Serbian defense system. However, if we follow only media reports in Serbia, the intensity of this cooperation will not be so obvious. Defense cooperation with Russia gets far more space in the media than activities with the US and NATO members. Thus, for example, the military exercise “Slavic Shield” completely occupied the public’s attention before and after its organisation in October 2019. Although undeniably a significant activity between the two armed forces, to which Russia brought its S-400 and Pantsir systems, it gained a disproportionately large space in the media compared to other exercises that took place that year with other partner countries. Apart from the image being sent to the public through media and various foreign policy moves, a very dynamic and practical defense cooperation with all partners takes place behind the scenes. The United States is one of Serbia’s important partners in the field of defense, and cooperation with the US Department of Defense has been achieved in various fields. Every year, Serbia and the US conduct about 100 different bilateral activities. In the eyes of the Serbian public, perception of relations with the United States, and especially perception of military cooperation, is burdened by the NATO intervention in 1999. In order to avoid losing political points at home and endangering relations with Russia, the political elite in Serbia avoids talking about cooperation with the United States and other NATO members, and the pro-regime media report accordingly. Regardless of the fact that military cooperation is often used as a foreign or domestic policy tool, it is important to discuss the practical aspects of this cooperation, benefits for Serbia and the US, their defense systems, but also the citizens. At the online discussion “Serbia and the USA: Together we are safer”, specific examples of military cooperation between Serbia and the US and practical benefits for our defense system and its members from this cooperation were discussed. Defense cooperation between Serbia and the United States takes place on several levels, through joint exercises, cooperation with the Ohio National Guard, a student exchange program, as well as donations.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Bilateral Relations
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Serbia, North America, and United States of America
63. Military Competition With China: Harder Than the Cold War?
- Author:
- Oriana Skylar Mastro
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center
- Abstract:
- Dr. Oriana Skylar Mastro begins her paper by emphasizing that U.S. national defense strategy has characterized the US-China relationship as one of great power competition (GPC). Both the US and China have existing relationships in the Indo-Pacific region and are undergoing efforts to foster new relationships there as well. China’s efforts, however, conflict with US military efforts to promote peace, strategy, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific, making them much harder to achieve. Mastro argues that it will be difficult to deter China’s efforts — perhaps even more difficult than it was to deter the Soviet Union’s efforts during the Cold War. She cites the geography of the Asia-Pacific (compared to that of Central Europe), the US’s ongoing struggle to establish a credible deterrent, China’s range of options for nonlethal but effective uses of force, and the lack of US willingness to grant China a parallel sphere of influence to that in which the Soviet Union was allowed to control as evidence to support her claim. Thus, Mastro recommends that the US must avoid relying on the same Cold War tools and competition strategies in its competition with China, despite their success in the past. Instead, the US needs to combat the threat posed by China through 1) convincing China that the costs of using force outweigh the benefits and 2) forging a counterbalancing coalition of allies and partners that are confident that the US will not only protect them from a military attack but other costly behaviors (e.g., economic coercion, diplomatic isolation) that China may leverage against them as well.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
64. Implications of Russia’s Activities in the Middle East and North Africa Region for U.S. Strategy and Interests
- Author:
- Chen Kane and Miles A. Pomper
- Publication Date:
- 12-2021
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
- Abstract:
- Russia’s ability to project power into the region remains limited today, and the status quo seems tolerable. But there are risks to U.S. interests in the future. The United States’ military withdrawals from Afghanistan, the Gulf and Iraq have significantly affected both U.S. regional posture and perceptions of U.S. commitment. Against that backdrop, the United States confronts multiple challenges as it seeks to “do more with less” in the region. Russia’s opportunities in the region increase as U.S. involvement decreases. Moscow’s “low investment, high disruption” approach works because it leverages the self-interest of actors, stakeholders, and governments in pursuit of limited aims. The U.S. approach of “high investment, low disruption” to preserve favorable regional balances of power is more costly and affords the United States less latitude, since it is rooted in principles and values. Russia is well-positioned (along with China) to undermine U.S. interests incrementally. That is true in MENA itself and, given the impact of Russia’s activities in this region for U.S. strategic advantages, in other regions of importance to the U.S., such as Europe and Asia. Countering Moscow’s efforts now should, therefore, be an important element of a revised and more comprehensive, yet also tailored, U.S. approach to the MENA region. What is needed is an adapted approach that leverages the United States’ comparative advantages to mitigate Moscow’s influence and that includes shifting some of the current U.S. presence to a more agile and unpredictable posture. Throughout the report, regional countries are categorized into four groups reflecting their anticipated vulnerability to Russian influence-building: (1) “Russia’s friends” (Iran and Syria); (2) “Balancers critical to NATO’s power projection” (Libya and Turkey); (3) “U.S. friends requiring sustained attention” (Egypt and Iraq); and (4) “U.S. allies seeking limited engagement with Russia” (the GCC and Israel). The U.S. should tailor its efforts to: contain Russia’s influence in Iran and Syria, roll back Russia’s influence in Libya and Turkey, manage Russia’s influence — especially on the military and defense sectors —in Egypt and Iraq, and offer reassurance to the GCC and Israel in order to minimize Russian influence in those countries.
- Topic:
- Military Strategy, Hegemony, Conflict, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Africa, Russia, Europe, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
65. Competition for High Politics in Cyberspace: Technological Conflicts Between China and the USA
- Author:
- Karina Veronica Val Sanchez and Nezir Akyeşilmen
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Polish Political Science Yearbook
- Institution:
- Polish Political Science Association (PPSA)
- Abstract:
- This paper highlighted the use of cyberspace as a conflict zone by the US and China, focusing on competition in various technological spheres, including cyberespionage, military technology, and Artificial Intelligence (AI). The main purpose of this study was to depict how great powers manipulate the cyber domain for their high political objectives through US-China rivalry. The research has been carried out mainly via literature review, discourse analysis, and relevant statistics. Consistent with previous literature and global public perception, the outcome has shown that both states are using cyberspace as a new domain for completion in trade, technology, and military purposes. Cyberespionage, the militarization of cyberspace, and AI have been the main conflict areas between these two global competitors in the last decade.
- Topic:
- Security, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Cybersecurity, Conflict, Strategic Competition, and Information Technology
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
66. Afghanistan: The Fog at the End of the Tunnel
- Author:
- Carl Conetta
- Publication Date:
- 06-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Project on Defense Alternatives
- Abstract:
- What is causing the uncertainty about when US ground forces will exit Afghanistan. The Biden administration insists that logistical factors explain its breach of the 2020 US-Taliban agreement, which reset the exit date from May to September. Logistical factors are also supposed to explain why the date may now be walked back to July. Actually, logistical issues explain neither. Using current data and historical precedent, this short analysis shows why. An alternative explanation for the delay is that it gave Washington more time to pursue some of its unfinished goals regarding Afghanistan. In this, the lingering troop presence serves as leverage. What goals? Improve Kabul’s military posture, polish plans and preparations for US forces to “fight from afar,” and pursue dramatic new international initiatives aiming to lock the Taliban into a cease-fire, peace settlement, and government reform plan substantially defined by the USA. This high risk-gambit won’t succeed, but it might prolong the conflict and America’s involvement in it.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Treaties and Agreements, War, Military Strategy, Armed Forces, Taliban, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America
67. Georgian Ethnopolitical Conflicts as a Subject of Confrontation between the USA and Russia
- Author:
- Ekaterine Lomia and Loid Karchava
- Publication Date:
- 06-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
- Institution:
- Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
- Abstract:
- Since 2009 Russia has increased its military forces in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and pursued the policy of ‘creeping annexation in the occupied territories of Georgia. Today, 20% of Georgian territories are occupied by the Russian Federation. The Russian-baked separatists continuously erect barbed-wire border posts in one of the occupied regions of Georgia-South Ossetia and detain Georgian people, under the pretext of ‘illegally crossing the border’. Fundamental rights of the local population are violated daily since the occupants install barbers through people’s houses, gardens, and cultivated lands. Innocent citizens are forced to leave their homes, belongings, and cultivated lands that are left beyond the occupants’ demarcation line. The paper argues that along with other global challenges of the world, the USA-Russia clashes of interests are also found with the Georgian conflicts. While Washington hugely supports Georgia’s territorial integrity and welcomes its Euro-Atlantic aspirations, the Russian Federation, on the contrary, prevents the aforementioned process and directly opposes Georgia’s integration into NATO. The USA condemns Russia’s creeping annexation of Georgian territories and continuously calls on Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of an independent country. Furthermore, the USA-Russia relations have considerably deteriorated following Russia’s military intervention in Georgia and the recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states.
- Topic:
- Military Strategy, Hegemony, Self Determination, Military Intervention, Conflict, Borders, and Territory
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Georgia, North America, and United States of America
68. The Nature of the Engagement of the United States in the Syrian Crisis: A Thematic Analysis
- Author:
- Zainaddin M. Khidhir
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of Liberty and International Affairs
- Institution:
- Institute for Research and European Studies (IRES)
- Abstract:
- The complications of the Syrian crisis that has extended over six years are overseen on three distinct levels which are national, topographical, and global. A closer look at the situation in Syria in 2010/2011 will help explain why the regime has survived, the complexities of the situation in Syria, and what makes the search for a stable political settlement so difficult. The purpose of the present study is to highlight the nature of US engagement in the Syrian crisis which involves maintaining the US military presence for regional stability, ensuring the enduring defeat of ISIS, countering the future expansion of the Iranian influence and political settlement to the conflict, containing the Assad’s regime in the interim. By outlining various threats, issues, assessing the Syrian conflict and its key actors, this paper seeks to explain the US response to the Syrian crisis on basis of thematic analysis. In conclusion, the United States' foreign policy has continued in a region vital to its national security interests due to available oil, its impetus to protect Israel, to support security by retaining military bases, to preserve the position of the protectorate of client states, and friendly regimes, and to resist Islamic movements and terrorism.
- Topic:
- Civil War, Military Strategy, Military Intervention, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America
69. 2020 Country Brief: Afghanistan
- Author:
- Third Way
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- After 19 years of war in Afghanistan and a peace agreement signed with the Taliban, it’s time for the United States to withdraw. Although the United States has slowly reduced troops in Afghanistan, the Trump Administration has left the remaining troops vulnerable to the Taliban and to Putin’s Russia, which is paying bounties to Afghans for murdering American soldiers.
- Topic:
- Military Strategy, Political stability, Military Intervention, Peace, and State Building
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Russia, Europe, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
70. 2020 Country Brief: Iran
- Author:
- Third Way
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- A nuclear-armed Iran is an unacceptable threat to America and our allies. But because of Donald Trump, we are closer to—not farther from—this nightmare scenario. Donald Trump chose a bellicose, chaotic, go-it-alone strategy toward Iran. He blew up the Iran Deal, the international agreement that froze Iran’s nuclear weapons program, because it was negotiated by Barack Obama. When he blew it up, our European allies were shocked—and for the first time ever, they sided with Iran to preserve the deal over the Trump Administration. And that’s what just happened again at the United Nations in August of this year. Now it will be more difficult to stop Iran’s malign activity in the future. President Obama brought international pressure to bear to force Iran into a difficult choice: they could have an economy or nuclear weapons, but not both. Iran chose an economy, and in doing so, accepted restrictions on its nuclear program and submitted to international inspections. In return, the United States, our European allies, Russia, and China began to resume economic activity with Iran. After freezing Iran’s nuclear program, the United States could have begun dealing with Iran’s other malign activity. Unfortunately, against the advice of his senior national security advisors and allies, President Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Iran Deal. Then he threatened our negotiating partners with sanctions for attempting to salvage the deal. And when that didn’t work, in January, he ordered a unilateral strike to kill one of Iran’s senior military leaders, Qasem Soleimani, risking outright war. Despite all this, he signaled he was open to negotiations with Iran but has not indicated what a successful agreement would include. Trump’s chaotic, bellicose strategy has yielded no positive results. Future policymakers will need to rebuild the coalition to deal with Iran and develop a long-term strategy to get Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, end its support for terrorists, and become a responsible global player.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
71. President Biden Has Five Options for Future Negotiations with Iran
- Author:
- Pat Shilo and Todd Rosenblum
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- President Biden has announced plans to re-engage with Iran on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. In this paper, we briefly outline the five most likely pathways ahead, each of which has strengths and challenges: Return to the JCPOA as it was. Return to the JCPOA plus new commitments that address other security concerns with Iran. Restore the JCPOA as it was plus a set of confidence-building measures to address other security concerns. Formally link a requirement for Iran to address our other concerns as a pre-condition for further talks. Return to the pre-JCPOA Middle East, where US and allies work to rollback Iran’s nuclear program and actively deter its regional actions by confrontation, punishment, and isolating measures. Each path carries risk and opportunity for restoring American leadership in the world, and congressional Democrats should remember the perfect deal does not exist. Members of Congress would be wise to measure the next deal against the status quo ante: an unconstrained, belligerent Iran again racing to a bomb.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Treaties and Agreements, Military Strategy, Denuclearization, and JCPOA
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
72. The Militarization of Cyberspace? Cyber-Related Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act
- Author:
- Michael Garcia
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- With Congress struggling to pass stand-alone cybersecurity legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is now the primary vehicle to pass all matters of cybersecurity legislation. Because the annual defense bill typically requires provisions to have a tie to national security, other cyber issues, like those pertaining to criminal justice, tend to be excluded. As a result, the authorities and resources awarded to Department of Defense (DoD) cyber mission far outpace those provided to civilian agencies responsible for partnering with state, local, private, and international partners. With ransomware and cyber incidents at an all-time high, Congress should either include a new title in future Defense bills to bolster US cyber enforcement and civilian agencies’ capabilities or pass a cyber-omnibus bill to fix policy gaps and provide commensurate funds to federal and local agencies to combat malicious cyber activity. In this paper, we analyzed the last five NDAAs (2017-2021) to chronicle Washington’s reliance on the NDAA to shepherd through a wide swath of cybersecurity legislation. We found that: Members of Congress included 290 cyber-related provisions in the past five NDAAs, with the past two NDAAs accounting for 60% of those provisions. In fact, the FY 2021 NDAA contained 380% more cyber-related provisions than the FY 2017 NDAA. The 179 cyber-provisions included in the past two NDAAs far outpace the 14 cybersecurity bills that the 116th Congress passed (two of which were those NDAAs). Across 13 categories, three of the top four were aimed at the DOD core cyber missions, such as changing organizational processes and structures, protecting DoD assets, and engaging with foreign partners while deterring nation-state adversaries. In FY 2020, the number of non-DoD-related cyber provisions began increasing, such as supply-chain security and industrial policy, critical infrastructure protection, and election security. The provisions in these NDAAs helped improve US offensive cyber capabilities, implement measures to deter cyber adversaries, and shore up our cybersecurity defenses, all of which are needed. But because cybersecurity is a multifaceted issue that expands beyond national security and touches on criminal justice, workforce development, private-sector collaboration, and privacy issues, Congress must ensure it takes a holistic approach when creating cybersecurity laws.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Legislation, and Cyberspace
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
73. Russian Relations with Central Asia and Afghanistan after U.S. Withdrawal
- Publication Date:
- 10-2021
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- The Harriman Institute
- Abstract:
- Join us for a meeting of the New York-Russia Public Policy Series, co-hosted by the Harriman Institute at Columbia University and the New York University Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia. In this second event of the academic year, our panelists will discuss the status of Russian relations with Central Asia and Afghanistan after the U.S. withdrawal. Moderated by Joshua Tucker (NYU Jordan Center) and Alexander Cooley (Harriman Institute). The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and the dramatic collapse of the U.S.-backed government in Kabul has ushered in another period of Taliban rule. Regional powers and neighbors have been anticipating the U.S. exit for some time: Russia remains a critical player in the region and, even before the U.S. withdrawal, had demonstrated a pragmatic approach to engaging with the Taliban. What is Moscow’s plan for dealing with the new Afghan government and what are its overall priorities in the region? How will this affect Russia’s relations with the Central Asian states and China? And are there any prospects for renewed cooperation between Moscow and Washington on counterterrorism issues in this period of uncertainty and potential instability? Please join this distinguished group of academic experts who will explore the new complex dynamics of a post-American Afghanistan and Central Asia. This event is supported by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Speakers Ivan Safranchuk, Director of the Center of Euro-Asian Research and Senior Fellow with the Institute for International Studies, MGIMO Nargis Kassenova, Senior Fellow and Director of the Program on Central Asia, Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Harvard University Artemy Kalinovsky, Professor of Russian, Soviet, and post-Soviet Studies, Temple University Ekaterina Stepanova, Director, Peace and Conflict Studies Unit, National Research Institute of the World Economy & International Relations (IMEMO), Moderated by: Alexander Cooley, Director of the Harriman Institute, Columbia University Joshua Tucker, Director of the Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia, New York University
- Topic:
- International Relations, Military Strategy, Governance, and Foreign Interference
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Russia, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America
74. President Biden: Try for a Double Play on Iran and Afghanistan
- Author:
- Jon Greenwald
- Publication Date:
- 08-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Council on International Policy (CIP)
- Abstract:
- Southwest Asia is increasingly dangerous. Negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program appear stuck near a breakpoint. With the Kabul government’s precipitous collapse, President Biden’s courageous decision to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan has gone badly. Each situation threatens grave consequences for the administration. Together they suggest more deadly chaos looms from the Middle East to China’s borders. Iran is an important common factor, central to the first case, important in the second due to geography and potential leverage. The concurrence of threat – but also perhaps opportunity – justifies a new strategy for dealing with it that cuts across both situations. Joe Biden said before taking office that it was a priority to restore the nuclear deal that was working well until Donald Trump took the U.S. out. He pledged to conclude the endless war in Afghanistan. Today neither objective appears promising. Iran has more enriched and closer to weapons level uranium than when the original deal was signed. U.S. officials acknowledge that negotiating time is limited and, by implication, that military action may be required to keep the president’s pledge never to allow an Iranian bomb. As the Taliban takes over Afghanistan, Washington is focused as it should be on safely extracting U.S. citizens and the many thousands of Afghans whose lives are at risk for having helped the Americans over 20 years. Soon, however, there will be new proposals, including preparations for off-shore responses to what many anticipate will be a revival of the kind of civil war that ravaged Afghanistan in the 1990s. Any reasonable proposal should include at the least a significant diplomatic component in which Afghanistan’s neighbors, Iran prominent among them, apply their weight to persuade the Taliban to rule more moderately than it did its first time in power and in particular to keep out international terrorists. Most acknowledge that a key weakness of that approach is U.S. inability to work with Tehran.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
75. Afghanistan: Before Time Runs Out
- Author:
- Owen Kirby
- Publication Date:
- 08-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Council on International Policy (CIP)
- Abstract:
- The withdrawal of remaining U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan is nearly complete. As they go, the country begins a new, uncertain chapter in a long uncertain history. With the U.S. and our allies having made significant investments and great sacrifices in an attempt to develop self-sustaining Afghan institutions – and the Taliban now rampaging through the countryside – this is the moment of truth for the country’s government and post-9/11 political order. Whether Afghanistan’s institutions, security forces, and civil society prove sufficiently resilient to meet current challenges is not solely a matter of local capacity and resolve (or wisdom of previous donor decisions). Nor is it a matter of free choice between competing political views, as Afghans are not going to the voting booth to decide the outcome. It is equally about the commitment of the U.S. and our allies to continue supporting the equality of Afghan women and minorities, rule of law, free speech, and basic human rights. These are not foreign impositions, as some might argue, but rather vital weapons, absent U.S. troops, in the Afghan people’s own struggle against extremism and political regression. For many, there is justifiable fatigue with America’s “forever war” and its costs; but the Taliban’s repressive rule and its consequences are not a specter of another lifetime. It has only been 20 years since Afghan girls were banned from going to school; women barred from the workforce and life outside the home; and summary justice, including stoning and decapitation, for transgressions against the Taliban’s medieval code meted out in the national stadium. It has only been 17 years since Afghans were first given the constitutional right to choose their leadership at the ballot box. Progress is recent, and the Taliban is determined to make it reversible.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Development, Military Strategy, Transition, and Foreign Interference
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
76. Breaking the Law of Opposite Effects: Europe’s Strategic Autonomy and the Revived Transatlantic Partnership
- Author:
- Iulian Romanyshyn
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
- Abstract:
- The post-Cold War transatlantic relations have been marked by something akin to the law of opposite effects. When the relationship is vibrant, Europe’s defence cooperation stagnates. When the relationship is in trouble, Europeans pull themselves together to advance their security and defence interests. During the Clinton presidency, Europeans comfortably outsourced military crisis management in the Balkans to Washington. In contrast, a major transatlantic rift over the Iraq war during the Bush administration triggered the adoption of the European Security Strategy and a bulk of EU military operations under the banner of the European Security and Defence Policy. EU-US relations were back on an even keel during the Obama era, the time when Europeans haphazardly reduced their defence budgets and lost a great share of their military capabilities. Enter Donald Trump. During the deepest crisis of confidence among transatlantic allies in decades, Europeans re-energized their defence integration with a set of new initiatives, such as permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF). It is therefore somewhat logical and far from unexpected that when Joe Biden emerged as the winner of the 2020 US presidential elections, there is yet again a heightened risk that Europeans would fall back into a lazy, self-defeating mindset of dependency on the US military shield. Breaking this pattern of reverse effects and avoiding European complacency is crucial for a healthy transatlantic partnership, but it requires concerted efforts on both sides of the Atlantic.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, European Union, Transatlantic Relations, and Strategic Stability
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North America, and United States of America
77. Where are the Carriers? U.S. National Strategy and the Choices Ahead
- Author:
- John F. Lehman
- Publication Date:
- 09-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Foreign Policy Research Institute
- Abstract:
- As the United States seeks to prepare for a potential conflict with a peer-level adversary, the debate around the utility of the aircraft carrier—and its role in such a contingency—once again has resurfaced. Since the carrier’s adoption over 100 years ago, policymakers and servicemembers have argued over the ship’s mission, size, vulnerability, and—of course—cost. These arguments have become increasingly more pointed as the armed services compete over diminishing financial resources. Former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman, with the assistance of Center for Naval Analyses Analyst Steve Wills, evaluates aircraft carrier options as he has done numerous times in the past. These choices include: Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered, large carrier; Light carriers based on amphibious warfare ships of the Wasp and America class; French nuclear-powered carrier Charles de Gaulle or conventionally powered British Queen Elizabeth-class carrier; A new medium carrier the size of the Cold War Midway-class ships. Lehman and Wills analyze these choices with fact-based criteria by considering a number of questions. What are the missions for air power at sea as the United States again confronts great power rivals in the form of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation? How “survivable” is the carrier in conditions of “modern” combat? How many carriers are needed for a global conflict? How big or small should that flattop be? How many and what type of carrier-based aircraft should it support? Can carrier aviation survive as an effective component of U.S. power projection and sea control capabilities without the kind of longer-range strike aircraft that it possessed during the Cold War? Where are the Carriers examines a wide range of sources, including those from Congress and the Defense Department, as well as carrier studies from both federally and privately funded research institutions, to develop a surprising conclusion on what the next U.S. carrier choice should be.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Military Affairs, and Navy
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
78. Can and Will Germany Be a Viable Partner in a U.S. “Pushback” Strategy Towards Russia?
- Author:
- Hannes Adomeit
- Publication Date:
- 05-2021
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies
- Abstract:
- Joe Biden, as presidential candidate, is on record as having stated that “the biggest threat to America right now in terms of breaking up our − our security and our alliances − is Russia.” As president, he asserted, “the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions are over.” The first months of his tenure in office have given some substance to such claims and confirmed that the new administration aims at containing and counteracting Russian malign behavior and to impose costs so as to affect the Kremlin’s risk calculus. Can Germany − and most likely will it − be a viable partner in such a U.S. strategy?
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Hegemony, Leadership, Conflict, and Rivalry
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Germany, North America, and United States of America
79. DPRK strategic capabilities and security on the Korean Peninsula: looking ahead
- Author:
- International Institute for Strategic Studies
- Publication Date:
- 07-2021
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- International Institute for Strategic Studies
- Abstract:
- Believing that Russian–US cooperation could play an important role in developing and implementing proposals for denuclearisation and creating lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula, the Moscow-based Center for Energy and Security Studies and the IISS undertook a joint assessment of North Korea’s progress in developing nuclear and missile capabilities and an examination of possible international steps towards a solution. The spectre of nuclear war has haunted the Korean Peninsula for nearly seven decades. In November 1950, United States president Harry Truman publicly raised the option of using nuclear weapons in the Korean War. For about 40 years after the war, the US deployed several types of tactical nuclear weapons in the Republic of Korea (ROK, or South Korea). The ROK and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North Korea) also launched their own nuclear-weapons programmes. While Seoul abandoned its dedicated weapons effort soon after ROK president Park Chung-hee was assassinated in October 1979, Pyongyang persisted, announcing its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003 and subsequently making rapid progress in building up nuclear and missile capabilities, while enshrining a nuclear-armed status in the country’s constitution. In September 2017, North Korea’s sixth nuclear test achieved a thermonuclear yield. Two months later, the DPRK launched a Hwasong-15 ballistic missile, which Pyongyang says is an intercontinental weapon system that can reach the entire US mainland. At that point, North Korea announced that its mission to build its nuclear forces was accomplished. The year 2017 saw military escalation on the Korean Peninsula reach an unprecedented level in the post-Korean War period. Many analysts believed that the situation had become the most volatile since the 1968 USS Pueblo crisis, or even since the end of Korean War hostilities in 1953. Some experts drew parallels with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Given Russia’s historical relationship with North Korea and the US alliance with South Korea, Moscow and Washington have special roles to play in promoting stability on the Korean Peninsula. As permanent members of the UN Security Council and depository states of the NPT, Russia and the US also bear special responsibility for upholding peace and international security. Their joint efforts, along with other major powers, were instrumental, for example, in resolving the crisis over the Iranian nuclear programme through the adoption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in July 2015. Despite US president Donald Trump’s decision in May 2018 to take the US out of the JCPOA, the deal remains a model of what can be achieved through multilateral diplomacy, especially when US–Russian cooperation is harnessed to promote nuclear non-proliferation. Similarly, should the key players demonstrate the political will to seek a sustainable solution to the security problems on the Korean Peninsula, Russian–US cooperation in a multilateral framework could play an important role in developing and implementing proposals. The opportunities are clear. For example, more than 67 years since the shooting stopped, the Korean War still remains officially unresolved. The Armistice Agreement of 1953 has yet to be replaced by a proper peace treaty or a more comprehensive accord. In these circumstances, the Moscow-based Center for Energy and Security Studies (CENESS) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) agreed in 2017 to conduct a joint assessment of North Korea’s progress in developing nuclear and missile capabilities. They also undertook to develop proposals on possible international steps to facilitate the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula and create lasting peace and security mechanisms. The two parties began their work in January 2018 and completed it in about 33 months. They received valuable assistance from a Russian working group led by CENESS and a US working group led by the IISS. The two working groups included former military officials, diplomats, nuclear specialists and scholars specialising in Korean studies. The two groups worked independently, then compared and consolidated their drafts. The results are summarised in this joint report prepared by the project co-chairs. All the contributing experts, listed in annexes one and two, participated in a personal capacity. The report does not necessarily reflect the views of all the experts involved in the study, or of the organisations they represent. CENESS and IISS hope that the report will serve as a catalyst for further discussions between researchers and officials on possible measures to reduce tensions and nuclear-related risks and build confidence in the region. We also hope that the report will help to facilitate discussions on how to promote pragmatic and effective Russian–US cooperation, an aim which has also been emphasised by the leadership of the two countries.
- Topic:
- Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Deterrence
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
80. America’s “Forever War” and the End of the Washington-led Unipolar World
- Author:
- Darren Spinck
- Publication Date:
- 10-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Institute for Development and International Relations (IRMO)
- Abstract:
- America’s retreat from Afghanistan culminated in the country falling back into control of the Taliban, the very group that provided safe- haven for al-Qaeda prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. America suffered immeasurable pain and costs from this jihadist attack on US soil, made possible by intelligence failures, evolved for the “Global War on Terror.” Twenty years later, Washington still has not learned from pre-9/11 mistakes. Prior to America’s complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, US intelligence was unable to convince the White House of the Afghan government’s fragility and the Taliban’s intentions. Radical Islamists in Afghanistan capitalized on policymaking which did not recognize the emerging Islamist threat towards America. Al-Qaeda’s September 11 tactical victory begat a series of foreign policy blunders in Afghanistan as strategies missteps again, celebrating another victory over America when the Taliban flag rose over the Afghan presidential palace on September 11, 2021.
- Topic:
- Military Strategy, Military Affairs, Leadership, and Civil-Military Relations
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
81. Is it time for Biden to demonstrate force with Iran?
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar
- Publication Date:
- 12-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The withdrawal of American forces from the Middle East may have strategic merits. The rationale for a contracted global military seems to match what American strategists have termed “offshore balancing,” which means that the U.S. holds fewer overseas bases but maintains its military capability to intervene in distant regions when necessary.
- Topic:
- Security, Military Strategy, Strategic Interests, and Intervention
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
82. Israel, the US, and the Iranian Nuclear project – back to basics
- Author:
- Eran Lerman
- Publication Date:
- 12-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- It is not in America’s interest for Israel to be perceived as an obedient lap dog. On the contrary, keeping Israel’s options open, or even enhancing them, will ultimately prove to be of value to the US.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Alliance, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
83. The Nuclear Talks in Vienna: Biden’s Legacy at Stake
- Author:
- Eytan Gilboa
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- From Tehran’s perspective, the goals are lifting the sanctions and securing immunity from military attacks.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Leadership
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
84. Why is Iran returning to the negotiating table?
- Author:
- Yaakov Amidror
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The American hope for the resumption of the talks, and the talks themselves, give the Iranians more freedom of action. They restrict US activity in response to mounting provocations.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Conflict, and Negotiation
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
85. Securing the Future of the Israel-US Special Relationship
- Author:
- Eran Lerman
- Publication Date:
- 10-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- With the help of American Jewry, a sturdy foundation of support for Israel-US ties needs to be rebuilt based upon traditional bipartisan commitment. This will enable Israel to engage effectively with the Biden Administration and Congress on the Iranian challenge.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, and Polarization
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
86. Israel Must Actively Oppose US Return to the JCPOA
- Author:
- Efraim Inbar and Omer Dostri
- Publication Date:
- 10-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Even if Israel’s ability to influence US decision-making is limited, it is a serious mistake to downplay Israel’s opposition to the dangerous nuclear accord.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Israel, North America, and United States of America
87. From Saigon to Kabul: Losing the Battle, Winning the War
- Author:
- Emmanuel Navon
- Publication Date:
- 08-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- America’s decision to leave Afghanistan makes sense only if the plan is to cut losses in an unwinnable war and redirect resources and energies toward a winnable strategy against Iran.
- Topic:
- Military Strategy, Military Intervention, Conflict, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
88. Yemen Offers Clues as to US Regional Strategy and the Abilities of Anti-Iran Forces
- Author:
- Jonathan Spyer
- Publication Date:
- 08-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The lack of a coherent Western strategy for the containment and rollback of Iran in the Middle East in worrying.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, Alliance, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, Yemen, North America, United States of America, and Gulf Nations
89. ‘Defence Against Help’ Revisiting a Primary Justification for Canadian Participation in Continental Defence with the United States
- Author:
- P. Whitney Lackenbauer
- Publication Date:
- 02-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
- Institution:
- Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies
- Abstract:
- Any conceptual framework for Canadian policy had to recognize the interdependent nature of North American security, whereby the United States’ safety was dependent on Canadian territory and airspace. In its classic incarnation, the concept of defence against help thus represents a trilateral equation, consisting of an external threat (or threatening context), a smaller state (the security of which is inextricably linked to the perceived security of a larger neighbour), and the neighbouring larger power itself. The equation incorporates how the threat relates to the larger state, and how the smaller state plays (or does not play) an intermediary role in the threat relationship between the threatening context and the larger state. Canada’s alignment to the United States did not detract from the value of the concept to its decision-making; it bolstered it. A smaller state can invoke the strategy of defence against help in two ways: unilaterally (with or without coordination with the larger state), or conjointly with the larger state. Does defence against help continue to represent a workable, basic decision-making strategy for Canada to ensure continental defence in the 21st century? Building upon observations that I initially drew in a 2000 working paper, I maintain that the concept no longer represents an attractive or viable justification for core Canadian strategic decision-making. Rather than conceptualizing United States continental defence priorities as a threat to Canada’s sovereignty (as it is conventionally defined in military and diplomatic circles) owing to potential territorial encroachment to protect the American heartland, cost-benefit analysis of Canadian options should focus on the benefits that Canada derives from its bilateral and binational defence partnership. Instead (and in contrast to some recent commentators), I suggest that the driving strategic consideration since the late 1980s has been less about defence against help than about the need for Canada to contribute meaningfully to bilateral defence in order to stay in the game and secure a piece of the action.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Regionalism
- Political Geography:
- Canada, North America, and United States of America
90. US Foreign Policy to South America since 9/11: Neglect or Militarisation?
- Author:
- Livia Peres Milani
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Contexto Internacional
- Institution:
- Institute of International Relations, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
- Abstract:
- Academic literature on US Foreign Policy to South America usually states its lack of atten- tion to the region in the post 9/11 period. I aim to problematize this assertion through an analysis of US regional security policy. Therefore, I consider data referring to military and economic assistance, arms transfers, and the SOUTHCOM position towards its area of responsibility, as well as official documents and diplomatic cables. I conclude that, although the region was not a priority, a waning in US actions or a moment of neglect in its policy towards it was likewise not observed. From a historical perspective, the area was never the main focus of attention, but there is a specialized bu- reaucracy that works on the region to maintain US hegemony. Therefore, the investigation indicates that Latin American assertiveness during the 2000s was caused primarily by the conjunction of the ascension of leftist governments and quest for autonomy, as well as by Chinese and Russian involve- ment in Latin America, but not by US neglect. The article is divided into six sections, including the introduction and final remarks. Following the introduction, I analyse the academic literature regarding USA-Latin American relations in the second section, the US assistance in the third, the SOUTHCOM postures in the fourth, and the strategies deployed by the USA regarding great powers and arms transfers in the fifth. Finally, I present the final remarks.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Regional Cooperation, Terrorism, Military Strategy, and Counter-terrorism
- Political Geography:
- Latin America, North America, and United States of America
91. The Trump Foreign Policy Legacy In The Middle East
- Author:
- James Franklin Jeffrey
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
- Institution:
- Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
- Abstract:
- In his foreign policy, President Trump followed new approaches and shaped the international stage in ways that will be hard for the Biden administration to reverse. These approaches, nowhere more apparent than in the Middle East, include, first, focus on near peer competition, in the Middle East, that included containing Russia, Iran, and Islamic violent extremists such as al-Qaida and particularly Daesh or ISIS. The second is reliance upon partners and allies. The Trump administration succeeded by its standards using the above approaches: Iran’s regional advance was contested and to some degree constrained, Teheran is under far greater economic pressure and faced with a regional coalition encouraged by the Abraham Accords. The administration had moved most of the region beyond the endless Palestinian issue as the lodestone of regional diplomacy, destroyed the ISIS territorial state, and with help from Turkey contained Russian advances. With the exception of the Iranian nuclear file, this looks like success. The issue now is whether the Biden administration can build on this success or revert to Obama
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Leadership, and Transition
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
92. US-Iran Relations After Trump: The Path to Peace is Open
- Author:
- Assal Rad
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
- Institution:
- Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
- Abstract:
- The attacks on 11 September 2001 not only shaped the focus of US foreign policy over the last two decades, but also de!ned how a generation of Americans understood the gravity of these policies by bringing the cost and tragedy of con"ict home. For many young Americans, it was the !rst time they became aware of the extent of US interventionism and how it impacts the way other nations and peoples view the United States. But events over the last year in the United States have brought the attitude of US foreign policy—which has long been driven by the idea that problems can be solved exclusively through militarism and force—much closer to home. Images of police violently confronting Black Lives Matter protestors and an insurrection at the Capitol were often likened to images of war zones abroad, the very wars started by the United States.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Peace
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
93. American Invasion And Withdrawals Post 9/11
- Author:
- Ibrahim Karatas
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
- Institution:
- Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ)
- Abstract:
- When the United States was hit by al-Qaida's terrorist attack on 11 September 2001 (hereafter 9/11 attacks), not only Americans but the whole world was shocked: The world’s only superpower was attacked at home and had lost more than three thousand people. To take revenge for the attack as well as to prevent new ones, the Bush administration decided to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq, which they claimed were sheltering and supporting al-Qaida. Afghanistan was invaded on 7 October 2001 because the US wanted (1) to eliminate Osama bin Laden (the mastermind of 9/11) and al-Qaida; (2) to remove the Taliban group from power and bring stability to Afghanistan by creating a democratic and peaceful state.[1] The US Army subsequently invaded Iraq in 2003, claiming that Saddam Hussain was supporting terrorism and producing chemical weapons. There were also allegations that the Hussain regime was behind the 9/11 attacks, but it was never proven. The US eventually removed both Taliban and Saddam Hussain from power and captured Hussain, who was later judged and executed by the new Iraqi government on 30 December 2006. US special forces killed Laden on 2 May 2011. As of today, the US has killed its two archenemies and changed regimes allegedly supporting terrorism in both Afghanistan and Iraq, yet could not bring stability. What is more, the remaining US troops are preparing to leave the two countries. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is in better condition than the pre-invasion era as both states have failed, lack a strong authority, and cannot !ght terrorism. In Afghanistan, the Taliban was the enemy to be removed, however the US’s recent agreement with the organization has paved the way for re-control of the country by the group. On the other hand, Iraq has become a land of widespread terrorism, and the country is more divided than before, not mentioning Iranian in"uence on Baghdad. Based on the current situation, my arguments are that (1) the US is about to make the same mistake it did in Vietnam, and (2) Afghanistan and Iraq might again become the hub of terrorist organizations as well as regional rivalries. Although I do not approve of the US invasions, as Afghanistan and Iraq saw the worse with its invasion, these countries will face the worst with the US’s withdrawal.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, War on Terror, and Foreign Interference
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
94. NATO on the Road to a New Strategy
- Author:
- Wojciech Lorenz
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- The Polish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- During the meeting of NATO foreign ministers on 2–3 December 2020, a group of experts presented the report “NATO 2030. United for a New Era” about strengthening the political dimension and consultation mechanisms of the Alliance. The report indicates a possible consensus on the expansion of the Alliance’s tasks, including on a common policy towards China. The document increases the chances that the allies will decide to start work on a new NATO strategy.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, NATO, Military Strategy, Alliance, and Strategic Interests
- Political Geography:
- China, Europe, and United States of America
95. The demise of the INF Treaty: a path dependence analysis
- Author:
- Augusto C. Dall'Agnol and Marco Cepik
- Publication Date:
- 05-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional (RBPI)
- Institution:
- Instituto Brasileiro de Relações Internacionais (IBRI)
- Abstract:
- This article explains changes in strategic stability through a path dependence framework, discussing its antecedent conditions, increasing returns, cleavages, critical junctures, reactive sequences, and legacy. We identify the leading causes of its formation, reproduction, modification, and, eventually, its end. Such an analysis is relevant as far as we observe significant changes in cornerstone’s aspects of strategic stability after the abrogation of the ABM Treaty and the INF Treaty. We argue that strategic stability as an institution passes through radical modifications produced by reactive sequences breaking the causal loop that allowed its reproduction since its formation.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and INF Treaty
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
96. Sharpening the Blunt Tool: Why Deterrence Needs an Update in the Next U.S. National Security Strategy
- Author:
- Kyle J Wolfley
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- Department of Social Sciences at West Point, United States Military Academy
- Abstract:
- The 2017 U.S. National Security Strategy appeared to bring deterrence back: departing from its predecessor, the document prioritized the concept by including “preserving peace through strength” as a vital national interest. From nuclear weapons to cyberspace, the strategy emphasized the logics of denial and punishment, which were hallmarks of the classical deterrence theory that emerged after World War II. However, recent thinking on deterrence has evolved beyond these simple logics. Now emerging concepts such as tailored deterrence, cross-domain deterrence, and dissuasion offer new ideas to address criticisms of deterrence in theory and practice. Therefore, the most vital question for the new administration is: how should the U.S. revise its deterrence policy to best prevent aggression in today’s complex environment? A review of the problems and prospects in deterrence thinking reveals that in addition to skillfully tailoring threats and risks across domains, U.S. policymakers should dissuade aggression by offering opportunities for restraint to reduce the risk of escalation.
- Topic:
- Security, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Cybersecurity, and Deterrence
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
97. The Shape of Things to Come: Why the Pentagon Must Embrace Soft Power to Compete with China
- Author:
- Kyle J Wolfley
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- Department of Social Sciences at West Point, United States Military Academy
- Abstract:
- As the COIVD-19 pandemic forced the United States to scale down its massive Defender exercise in Europe, the Chinese military continued its multinational exercise programs with Cambodia, Russia, and Pakistan, despite China’s strict domestic lockdowns. These exercises highlight how China is wielding a form of military power commonly overlooked in assessments of its rise. Today, states leverage their armed forces not only for warfighting or coercion, but also to manage international relationships. Military power includes not only the capacity to conquer and compel, but also the ability to create advantage through attraction and persuasion—a concept I call “shaping.” Unlike military strategies of warfighting or coercion, shaping relies less on force and more on the use of persuasion to change the characteristics of other militaries, build closer ties with other states, and influence the behavior of allies. China’s leaders increasingly understand the value of using their military to shape the international system in their favor. American policymakers, if they wish to compete effectively, ought to take shaping more seriously as well.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Military Strategy, Hegemony, Pandemic, and COVID-19
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
98. Congressional Perspectives on U.S. Policy Toward North Korea and Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
- Author:
- Kelsey Davenport and Julia Masterson
- Publication Date:
- 08-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Arms Control Association
- Abstract:
- Addressing the threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear weapons is one of the most significant and complex challenges facing the United States. Developing, implementing, and sustaining a verifiable diplomatic process that reduces risk and rolls back Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program requires a whole of government approach, including constructive contributions from members of the U.S. Congress. While crafting and implementing such an approach will be the prerogative of the Executive Branch, the role that Congress can play in supporting or hindering such a process should not be overlooked. Congress has used an array of tools to put in place conditions for negotiations, express its support or opposition to administration policy, and implement coercive measures toward North Korea designed to punish Pyongyang for its violations of international law and stymie its weapons development efforts. Using survey data and in-depth interviews from the late months of 2020, this report provides insight into how Congress views the North Korean nuclear threat and U.S. approaches to engaging with Pyongyang. More clarity into Congressional views and attitudes may lead to more effective policymaking.
- Topic:
- Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Denuclearization
- Political Geography:
- Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
99. What is Iran’s Real Goal in Nuclear Talks with the US?
- Author:
- Alexander Grinberg
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- Sanctions relief, nothing else. Iran has no intention of forsaking its nuclear and missile programs nor its proxy wars across the region.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Denuclearization, and JCPOA
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
100. Strategic Implications of the Damage at the Natanz Enrichment Facility
- Author:
- Eran Lerman
- Publication Date:
- 04-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)
- Abstract:
- The US should be appreciative of any significant delay in Iran’s breakout timetable towards a nuclear weapon. The time gained can and should be used to negotiate a “longer, stronger” agreement.
- Topic:
- Security, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
- « Previous
- Next »
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4