Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Strategy

1591. Russia and America: Is Another Arms Race Afoot?

Author:
Jane M.O. Sharp
Publication Date:
11-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
During the Cold War years we learned that successful arms con- trol agreements with the Soviet Union were those that codified parity, or at least a mutually acceptable status quo. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) in 1991, a much diminished Russia saw all its WTO allies and three former Soviet republics join NATO, making parity harder to achieve. But there are still compelling reasons to shape agreements that satisfy all parties. During the 1990s, under Boris Yeltsin, Russia strove to be represented as an equal to the United States in arms control diplomacy and in negotiations concerning the future of former Yugoslavia. President Bill Clinton tried to meet Yeltsin’s concerns, but there has been little constructive cooperation on arms control between George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. Indeed, since 2000, Bush has been hostile to any kind of multilateral diplomacy. He began his presidency with a new generation of ballistic missile defenses (BMD) and withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, an agreement that had stabilized U.S.-Soviet relations for two decades. In Russia, an increasingly belligerent Putin, flush with oil money, is now determined to be accorded great power status in his dealings with the West. He is asserting himself in many areas: trying to block independence for Kosovo; countering U.S. sanctions against Iran; and renegotiating arms control agreements concluded when Russia was weak. While Putin is viewed with increasing wariness in the West, on arms control he has some points that need to be taken seriously.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Arms Race
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, North America, and United States of America

1592. The U.S. and Iran After the NIE

Author:
Farideh Farhi
Publication Date:
12-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The release of the National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities, intentions, and policies created shock waves as well as sighs of relief in Washington and elsewhere. The assessment that Iran stopped its weapons program in 2003, and that its declared enrichment program cannot be converted as easily or as quickly as assumed for use in a military program, immediately brought into question the notion that Iran’s nuclear program needs to be dealt with immediately and only through coercive mechanisms. Amid a notable amount of “spinning” the NIE’s conclusions, a slew of questions are in play regarding if and how the U.S. should alter its hard-edged policies toward the Islamic Republic. A consensus seems to have developed that the report has taken the military option off the table and made the sanctions process at play in the U.N. Security Council more difficult to pursue effectively. These dynamics gave longstanding proponents of direct and unconditional dialogue with Iran new opportunity to re-state their case.1 Calls for such negotiations also came from surprising new corners. In the words of Robert Kagan, co-founder of the hawkish Project for the New American Century, “it is hard to see what other policy options are available. This is the hand that has been dealt. The Bush administration needs to be smart and creative enough to play it well.”2
Topic:
Security, Intelligence, Nuclear Weapons, United Nations, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

1593. South Korea’s Soft Power Diplomacy

Author:
Sook-Jong Lee
Publication Date:
06-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
Seoul Policymakers have begun to use the concept of "soft power" in recent years, and they have found it to be an attractive foreign policy tool. Since the end of the Korean War, South Korea has strived to build up its "hard power"—a strong military to contain an aggressive North Korea and economic growth to pull the South out of poverty. Having achieved rapid economic development, a consolidated democracy, and reconciliation with the North, South Korea now looks out at the world from a small peninsula. For policy entrepreneurs seeking the best way to enhance their country’s international standing, Joseph Nye’s celebrated notion of soft power—defined as "the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payment" (Nye 2004)—is appealing. Scholarly debates now have turned to the more difficult and practical question of how to infuse South Korean diplomacy with this notion of soft power following the inauguration of the Lee Myung-bak government. Adding the marketing concept of "branding" to soft power, the government established the Presidential Committee on Nation Branding in January of 2009.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

1594. Channel Surfing: Non-engagement as Foreign Policy

Author:
Barbara K. Bodine
Publication Date:
08-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The adoption of Security Council Resolution 1701 brought a halt to the month-long Israeli-Hezbollah war. UNIFIL will be greatly expanded with a more vigorous mandate to back Lebanese assertion of full sovereignty and control over southern Lebanon and the disarmament of Hezbollah’s militia and missile sites. But is an agreement hammered out in Manhattan sustainable on the ground? Was success in New York confirmation that the Bush administra- tion has come to terms with the utility of the United Nations and the facility of our friends and allies? Or does the agreement’s ambiguity and fragility underscore the costs of dogged non-engagement with our adversaries, even in times of crisis?
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, United Nations, Military Strategy, and Hezbollah
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, and Lebanon

1595. The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal: Triumph of the Business Lobby

Author:
Subrata Ghoshroy
Publication Date:
09-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
South Asia has come a long way since the days of SEATO and CENTO1 —the U.S.- sponsored pacts to contain China and keep India under check. Gone are the days when the Seventh Fleet flexed its muscle on the Bay of Bengal in support of a beleaguered Pakistan in its military campaign against the “mukti bahini”—the freedom fighters in erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Once the leader of the non-aligned, the Indian government has not expressed even a whimper of protest about what has been happening to Iraq, Lebanon, or Gaza. India and the United States now are “natural allies,” apparently forged primarily by mutual economic interests. But there was the China factor as well. Although left unsaid, China entered in to the calculation of both India and the United States. The Bush administration is careful not to revive the notion of the Cold War policy of containing China, but many in the Congress are not so reticent. At the same time, the Indian government is equally careful to highlight the growing normalization of relations and the growing trade ties with Beijing. But the clamor in the security community in New Delhi is all about countering China—a topic I heard repeatedly during my recent visit to the region. So its importance cannot be discounted. But the economic incentives of the deal have not earned as much scrutiny, a major oversight in the public discourse.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Deterrence, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:
United States, China, India, Asia, and North America

1596. Waiting for Goldilocks: Getting Japan’s Foreign Policy Just Right

Author:
Richard J Samuels
Publication Date:
10-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Generations of American parents have read their children a story called "Goldilocks and the Three Bears." It is the story of a young girl who wanders into the bears’ home in the woods. Goldilocks sits on chairs that are too big and too small, before find- ing one that is “just right.” She rejects bowls of their porridge as being too hot and as too cold, until she finds one that is “just right.” Like most children’s stories, Goldilocks is metaphorical. Americans use it to describe the process of finding just the right balance between alternatives that are too extreme. This metaphor captures the challenges awaiting Abe Shinzo, Japan’s new prime minister very nicely—particularly in the areas of foreign and secu- rity policy. His predecessor, Koizumi Junichiro, had already been like Goldilocks in his extended effort to find just the right policy toward North Korea. In his 2002 visit to Pyongyang he explored engagement, only to adopt toward a harder, more confrontational line. If the first was too hot and the second too cold, Abe is left with the responsibility to find a policy toward the DPRK that is “just right.” North Korea’s nuclear weapons test in October 2006 and its July 2006 missile tests certainly do not make this any easier.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

1597. Addressing Iraq in a Charged Political Environment - Winning the Debate Over the War

Author:
Matt Bennett
Publication Date:
08-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
This memo describes how progressives candidates can attack their opponents’ lack of action on Iraq, characterizing them as “satisfied” with the Bush plan for a permanent US presence there and with all other aspects of the Bush administration’s leadership on the war. It goes on to lay out a number of policy ideas to help change course in Iraq and move America toward success in the war.
Topic:
Imperialism, Military Strategy, Elections, and Conflict
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, and North America

1598. Boots On The Ground: Increasing the Size of the Army To Meet The Missions of the 21st Century

Author:
Aaron Scholer
Publication Date:
05-2005
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
In the wake of 9/11 and the war in Iraq, the United States Army has been asked to shoulder enormous burdens with a force that remains almost unchanged in size since it was drawn-down following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The occupation of Iraq and other duties around the world have required the greatest sustained deployment of the American military since the height of the Vietnam War, but the Army has not been allowed to take substantive, permanent measures to grow larger to meet this challenge. Moreover, despite a dramatic 37% increase in defense spending since 9/11, the Bush Administration has yet to request a permanent increase in size for our main fighting force. Consequently, the Army is facing the greatest mismatch between its mission and its manpower since the mid-1930s, when Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur, deeply concerned about the military's thin ranks and the lack of urgency in government circles about that state of affairs, remarked that “the secrets of our weakness are secrets only to our own people.”
Topic:
Defense Policy and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, and Soviet Union

1599. Eastward Bound: The Strategy and Politics of Repositioning U.S. Military Bases in Europe

Author:
Todd W. Fields
Publication Date:
05-2004
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
This article examines the strategic rationale and political implications of the U.S. Department of Defense’s proposal to reposition U.S. military bases in Europe. The Pentagon’s plans call for a withdrawal of U.S. bases and personnel from Germany and the creation of various smaller, more flexible bases in Central and Eastern Europe. While the removal of U.S. forces from Germany is appropriate given the absence of an imminent security threat to Europe, revamping the European basing structure in the midst of current trans-Atlantic tensions presents formidable political challenges. Given the impact that base realignment is likely to have on U.S. relations with Germany, Russia, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the United States must exercise a deft diplomatic touch—balancing the pursuit of its strategic interests with the preservation of its regional relationships and alliances.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Politics, Military Strategy, and Military Bases
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

1600. Getting to “Yes” on Missile Defense: The Need to Rebalance U.S. Priorities & The Prospects for Transatlantic Cooperation

Author:
Jeffrey P. Bialos and Stuart L. Koehl
Publication Date:
01-2004
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Transatlantic Relations
Abstract:
At the end of the day, missile defense is and should be here to stay as a key element of U.S., and in all likelihood, European defense strategy for the twenty-first century. The threats are real and there is an emerging consensus about creating defenses against it. While the “macro” issues of ABM withdrawal and initial fielding of the U.S. midcourse segment are behind us, there are very legitimate issues that warrant debate on both sides of the Atlantic. We now need to focus on making the right choices to provide a better balance of capabilities between various strategic, regional, force protection, and homeland security needs. Moreover, U.S.-European engagement on missile defense is potentially, but not inevitably, a win-win proposition—binding alliance partners together geo-politically, creating a layered, multi-national plug and play “system of system” architecture, and enhancing our ability to fight wars together. And, an enhanced coalition war fighting capability is likely to have beneficial spillover effects on the broader Transatlantic relationship; it is axiomatic that countries that fight wars together tend to have congruent interests in a range of areas. But for this to happen, Europe needs to begin to seriously consider its missile defense needs soon and apply resources to the task and the United States needs to resolve the underlying technology transfer issues and questions of roles and responsibilities. Thus, with hard work and good will, multi-national cooperation between the United States and its allies offers “win-win” from the standpoint of strengthening the alliance and our mutual security.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Weapons, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:
United States, China, and Europe