Just after the Roman poet said it was sweet and pretty to die for the fatherland he added that even if you ran and hid death would still shoot you in the knees
When a boat springs a leak far from shore, it is customary for all hands to man the pumps—be they friends or enemies, passengers or crew. Every individual's survival depends on the actions of his or her compatriots. So it is with the global economy today.
Topic:
Debt, Markets, Oil, International Monetary Fund, and Financial Crisis
Preventive diplomacy—conceived by Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold in the mid-1950s and revitalized in the early 1990s by Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali—is a vital instrument in the United Nations' conflict-prevention toolkit. While the responsibility for preventing conflict and its escalation ultimately lies with countries themselves, the UN has played an indispensable supporting role since its establishment and will continue to do so.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Political Violence, Diplomacy, United Nations, and Peacekeeping
Political Geography:
America, Israel, Latin America, and Southeast Asia
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
As the first combatant command to embed the 3D [diplomacy, defense, development] concept in your structure, what would you say are the impediments to better integration between civilian and military agencies?
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Gideon Rachman has an intriguing notion. The broad assumptions of most analyses of world politics since 1989—that the major and middle powers of the world are agreed on a set of shared interests, that globalization has created a positive-sum context in which all can benefit at the same time, that a sort of modern alliance of likeminded states opposed to major conflict and other annoyances such as terrorism and environmental degradation will work to preserve stability—may be breaking down. The “international political system has . . . entered a period of dangerous instability and profound change,” he writes, which will fracture the foundations of the positive-sum, like-minded-powers world.
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Recent polling shows that two-thirds of Americans do not believe the war in Afghanistan is worth fighting anymore. What makes you think it is worth fighting?
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Ongoing engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq have resurrected one of the most important and challenging questions facing political and military leaders in the United States and other nations: how to set objectives, conduct operations, and terminate wars in a manner that achieves intended political outcomes. The collective track record leaves much to be desired, and results of even the most recent conflicts would argue that we have not yet learned the necessary lessons from wars in the 20 th century to prevent making many of the same mistakes and suffering similar consequences in the 21 st century.
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
In 2003, did you believe that Iraq posed a clear and present national security threat to the United States? General Myers: The fact that everybody thought Iraq had WMD [weapons of mass destruction] made [it] a threat because of the nexus between WMD and violent extremists.
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
In his latest book, Joseph Nye presents a comprehensive examination of the multifaceted dimensions of power and advances a framework for what he calls “liberal realism.” Nye writes for the “intelligent reader” rather than an academic audience and offers a set of recommendations for a smart power strategy in the 21st century Smart power, he explains, is “the combination of the hard power of coercion and payment with the soft power of persuasion and attraction.”
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Imagine a debate erupting in the United States over how much the government should invest in cancer research. (Such a debate might well emerge from the budget cutting that we are going to face over the next few years.) One school of thought argues that we should continue to fund the research generously because men have about a 1 in 2 chance of developing cancer at some point in their lives, and women have a 1 in 3 chance. Impressive statistics, says the other side, but while millions may contract cancer, the actual number of cancer deaths is estimated to be less than 600,000 in 2011. Millions of Americans may suffer and we should make them comfortable, but cancer is not an existential threat to America. We need not continue funding the search for a cure.