Number of results to display per page
Search Results
1482. Debating US Interests in Syria's Civil War
- Author:
- Brian Haggerty
- Publication Date:
- 09-2013
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- In the aftermath of a chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, President Obama's threat to launch a limited cruise missile strike to "deter and degrade" Syrian President Bashar al-Asad's chemical weapons capability has once again thrust U.S. Syria policy to the forefront of national debate.
- Topic:
- Civil War, Military Strategy, Hegemony, and Military Intervention
- Political Geography:
- Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America
1483. China’s Military Strategy in the Asia-Pacific: Implications for Regional Stability
- Author:
- Ian Easton
- Publication Date:
- 09-2013
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Project 2049 Institute
- Abstract:
- The military modernization program being undertaken by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is changing the security environment in the Asia-Pacific. Driven by a strategy to achieve the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership’s goals through the exploitation of advantageous conditions, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is investing in capabilities that are aimed at eroding the conventional military superiority of the United States and its allies in the region. Should the PLA’s modernization campaign succeed the likelihood of conflict and regional instability can be expected to increase as China’s authoritarian leadership is empowered with greater coercive leverage over its neighbors.
- Topic:
- Security, Military Strategy, Regional Integration, Modernization, and Strategic Stability
- Political Geography:
- China and Asia-Pacific
1484. Is NATO Still Necessary for Canada?
- Author:
- J. L. Granatstein
- Publication Date:
- 03-2013
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
- Abstract:
- The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been the most successful military alliance of the modern era. Set up in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union, NATO won the Cold War some four decades later without firing a shot. Perhaps it might have been better if NATO had wound itself up at the end of the Cold War. The alliance instead sought a new role and found it out of area. It conducted operations in Former Yugoslavia, war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and later still an air campaign that brought down Gaddafi in Libya. None of these operations were notable successes. In 2011, then U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that NATO faced “the real possibility [of] a dim, if not dismal future....The military capabilities simply aren’t there." The transatlantic alliance, Gates said, must confront fundamental strategic questions about its future. All this makes a hard look at NATO essential. The European nations can readily handle the defence of their territory, and it is time to ask if NATO is the best way for us to contribute to Western defence, to ask which nations can and will act to protect democratic values? The "Anglosphere" states all fought in Afghanistan. So too did France and Denmark. And in Asia, there are other friendly states. There is no talk of a military alliance yet but there is the possibility of coalitions of the willing. Instead of pledging fealty to NATO's hollow shell, it is time for Canadians to produce a strategy for the next twenty years. Any such review will give primacy to Canada’s alliance with the United States. But one question must be asked and answered: does NATO any longer serve our political and military needs?
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Europe, Canada, North America, and United States of America
1485. Who Gives the Orders in the New Russian Military?
- Author:
- Keir Giles
- Publication Date:
- 03-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- NATO Defense College
- Abstract:
- The theory of supreme command of the Russian Armed Forces is set out in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and in published Federal Laws. Decision-making in practice involves the presidency, the government, the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the General Staff, and the Security Council of the Russian Federation. During and after Soviet times, the relationship between these bodies, and by extension how and where decisions were taken, was understood better than it is today - in general terms, the General Staff took important decisions and dealt with planning, while the MoD implemented them, for example dealing with training and logistics. But the fundamental reforms embarked upon in the Russian Armed Forces after August 2008, and changes to Federal Laws which also followed the armed conflict at that time, have shifted these relationships in ways which are not yet fully understood outside Russia, and in some cases within Russia as well. The result is that military decision-making in Russia is now less predictable.
- Topic:
- Military Strategy and Governance
- Political Geography:
- Russia and Soviet Union
1486. Leaders at War: How Presidents Shape Military Interventions
- Author:
- David A. Crockett
- Publication Date:
- 08-2012
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Political Science Quarterly
- Institution:
- Academy of Political Science
- Abstract:
- In The Federalist, No. 70, Alexander Hamilton argues in favor of an executive office comprising one person, principally because that unitary structure will provide “energy in the executive,” which for Hamilton is a “leading character in the definition of good government.” Qualities directly associated with this unity – energy relationship include “decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch.” This structural feature of the second branch of government would seem to make the identity of the president rather important. After all, the loss of one member of Congress leaves 534 legislators to soldier on. Change the president, however, and you end up with a completely different administration, even if subordinate personnel do not change.
- Topic:
- Military Strategy
1487. Collective Self-Action
- Author:
- Ananth Padmanabhan and Michael Shih
- Publication Date:
- 12-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
- Abstract:
- Collective self-defense is an express exception to the U.N. Charter’s prohibition on the use of force by states. It permits a member state to intervene in the defense of another member state when that state has been subject to an unlawful armed attack. Here we consider (1) the obligations that international law places on an intervening state and (2) the best practices for an intervening state that may be derived from past state practice.
- Topic:
- United Nations, Military Strategy, Legal Theory, Military Intervention, and Collective Defense
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
1488. The Meaning of "Assist, Encourage, or Induce" in the Weapons Ban Context
- Author:
- Christina Koningisor
- Publication Date:
- 12-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
- Abstract:
- More than half of all multilateral disarmament treaties currently in force prohibit member states from “assist[ing], encourag[ing], or induc[ing]” another party in its pursuit or use of the prohibited weapon. This report examines this provision across five major disarmament treaties and arrives at three key findings
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Treaties and Agreements, Military Strategy, and Multilateralism
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
1489. The New U.S. Defense Strategic Guidance and Its Implications for South Korean Security
- Author:
- Young Ho Kim
- Publication Date:
- 02-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- On January 5, 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama paid a rare visit to the Pentagon and unveiled his guidelines for the Department of Defense to set the goals and priorities of its defense strategy for the next ten years. The resulting eight-page-long guidelines, entitled Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense (hereafter DSG), contain the administration’s assessment of changing global security conditions and propose the roles and shape of the U.S. armed forces for the coming decade. Prepared through “unprecedentedly” close consultations between the President himself and senior leaders in the U.S. defense department and military including both service chiefs and combatant commanders, the DSG defines the present as a historic “inflection point” and envisions the future U.S. military as “smaller and leaner, but agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced.” Moreover, in accordance with the DSG the U.S. defense budget will be cut by $487 billion and the sizes of the Army and Marine Corps will shrink by 80,000 and 14,000 respectively over the next ten years. While a more detailed picture will be revealed next month with the administration’s FY2013 budget request to Congress, the DSG reflects the Obama administration’s arduous effort to rebalance and redirect its defense priorities and spending under severe fiscal austerity. Because of the unusual timing of its publication and the magnitude of the reduction in defense spending, the DSG has generated controversy and concern domestically in the United States as well as internationally. In the United States, particularly people in the conservative wing of the Republican Party have been prompted to criticize the guidelines for putting the nation’s security in danger, whereas some people on the liberal side have advocated seeking deeper and bolder cuts in defense spending. Internationally, China was understandably the first to respond negatively to the DSG. For example, rebutting the DSG’s portrayal of Beijing’s military policy as lacking transparency as “groundless and untrustworthy,” Liu Weimin, a spokesman of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, stressed that Beijing was committed to peaceful development and “defensive” policy. What then are the implications of the DSG for South Korean security? Will there be any changes in U.S. defense policy or posture in the region under the DSG that may affect security conditions in South Korea significantly and, if so, require new measures or scrutiny by the South Korean government or the military? In fact, there have been largely four issues raised by the news media in South Korea. I will examine these four issues, and then discuss more challenging concerns that will require closer attention by South Korean foreign and security policy-makers.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, North America, and United States of America
1490. The Nuclear Security Summit and South Korea’s Growing International Role
- Author:
- Sang-Hyun Lee
- Publication Date:
- 04-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- East Asia Institute (EAI)
- Abstract:
- On March 26-27, 2012, South Korea successfully held the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit. This was the largest diplomatic gathering ever held in South Korea with fifty-three countries and four international non-governmental organizations participating. Alongside the summit, President Lee Myung-bak held twenty-seven bilateral talks which helped to elevate South Korea’s international role. The Seoul Summit has been judged to have produced a more concrete outcome that has strongly supported the achievements made at the Washington Summit in 2010. The result is the Seoul Communiqué, which states that nuclear disarmament, nuclear nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy are the shared goals of humanity while also reconfirming the commitment to seeking a safer world for all and sharing the objective of nuclear security. Moreover, the communiqué stresses the fundamental responsibility of all countries, consistent with their respective national and international obligations, to maintain effective security of all nuclear material, which includes nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities under their control, as well as to prevent non-state actors from acquiring such materials and from obtaining information or technology required to use them for malicious purposes. The communiqué further reaffirms that measures to strengthen nuclear security will not hamper the rights of states to develop and utilize nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. With North Korea’s nuclear threat still overshadowing the Korean Peninsula, the summit had some meaningful implications. South Korea will have undoubtedly enhanced its national image from passive recipient to an active rule-maker in international norms. In preparing for the summit, the South Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MOFAT) focused on comprehensive and action-oriented measures under the belief that by only transforming political commitments from the Washington Summit into action would guarantee the success of the summit. As a result, the Seoul Summit has demonstrated that the promises from the 2010 Washington Summit have now advanced to fruitful outcomes. The seventy-two commitments from that summit have now been almost realized with only a few still to be finalized. In addition, the Seoul Summit has proven itself to be the transition point for global nuclear security moving from political declaration to concrete implementation. The summit itself has also widened its agenda including nuclear safety, the safe use of nuclear energy and radioactive materials, therefore able to address some of the key issues raised following the Fukushima accident. Despite the achievements, some limitations are evident when looking at the preparations for the summit and its aftermath. In the build-up to the summit in South Korea, there were problems in communication between state and people. While the summit is dedicated to preventing nuclear terrorism, some questioned why South Korea was hosting a summit that did not address issues closer to home such as the North Korean nuclear issue or the U.S.-Korea nuclear energy agreement controversy. Such criticism required strong justification of why South Korea was hosting the summit. Another area of difficulty was that nuclear security itself actually lacks a clear definition even among experts. To cope with such questions, MOFAT sought for advice and creative ideas by hosting advisory board meetings during the preparation for the summit.
- Topic:
- Arms Control and Proliferation, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Summit
- Political Geography:
- Asia and South Korea
1491. Türkiye’nin İsrail ile İlişkilerinin Değişen Dinamikleri: Bir ‘Güvenlikleştirme’ Analizi* | The Changing Dynamics of Turkey’s Relations with Israel: An Analysis of ‘Securitization’
- Author:
- Ali Balcı and Tuncay Kardaş
- Publication Date:
- 12-2012
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Sakarya University (SAU)
- Abstract:
- Bu çalışmanın amacı şu sorulara cevap aramaktır: Ortadoğu’da düşük profilli bir politika izleyen Türkiye’nin 1990’larda İsrail devleti ile güçlü bir stratejik ittifak ilişkisi kurması nasıl mümkün olmuştur? Sonrasında bunun tersine iki ülke arasında 1990’lardaki benzersiz ve pozitif ilişkilerin yerini 2000’lerde neden düşmanca bir ortam almıştır? 1990’lar ile 2000’lerdeki ilişkilerin arasındaki bu fark nasıl açıklanabilir? Bu soruları cevaplamak için makale Kopenhag Okulu’nun “güvenlikleştirme” kavramını kullanmaktadır. Bu yaklaşım sadece Türkiye-İsrail ilişkilerindeki farklı dönemlerin özelliklerini resmetmeye yardımcı olmamakta, aynı zamanda politik anlamda sivil-asker ilişkilerinin dış politika yapımındaki etkisini vurgulamaya da imkân sağlamaktadır. | The present study seeks to answer the following questions: How was it possible that a state such as Turkey, which had until then pursued a low-profile policy in the Middle East, has able to forge a bold strategic alliance with the state of Israel in the 1990s? Conversely then, why was the unparalleled and positive nature of relations in the 1990s replaced by a hostile and toxic nature in the first decade of the 2000s? How can this difference in the relations between the 1990s and 2000s be explained? To answer such questions, this article uses the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitization. This approach not only helps to illustrate the characteristics of different periods in Turkish-Israeli relations, it also helps to highlight the specificity of the politics of civilmilitary relations in foreign policy making.
- Topic:
- Security, Government, Military Strategy, and Bilateral Relations
- Political Geography:
- Turkey, Middle East, and Israel
1492. Explaining the Pentagon’s Defense Strategy
- Author:
- Julie Zelnick and Mieke Eoyang
- Publication Date:
- 05-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- The purpose of this paper is to translate the long and technical national security strategic directive the Obama Administration laid out on January 5, 2012 into plain language and provide policymakers with guidance on how to make the case for the President’s plan. The directive has four over-arching goals, which are reflected in the budget
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Imperialism, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- United States, North America, and Global Focus
1493. Mission Revolution: The U.S. Military and Stability Operations
- Author:
- Jennifer Morrison Taw
- Publication Date:
- 09-2012
- Content Type:
- Book
- Institution:
- Columbia University Press
- Abstract:
- Defined as operations other than war, stability operations were, for the entire history of the United States military, considered a dangerous distraction if not an outright drain on combat resources. Nonetheless, American troops are now deployed far more often for stability operations than for conventional war. In 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense reversed its traditional stance on stability operations, elevating them to a primary mission alongside more conventional offense and defense goals. Jennifer Morrison Taw argues that this action represented a revolutionary change with significant implications on U.S. foreign policy. Through a detailed examination of the accompanying adjustments to U.S. military doctrine and adaptations in force preparation, Taw connects the elevation of stability operations to the far-reaching, overly ambitious American preoccupation with managing international stability. She also shows how the DOD's decision reinforced and exacerbated domestic politics that already had reduced civilian agencies' capabilities while fostering an unhealthy overreliance on the military.
- Topic:
- Military Strategy, Military Affairs, and Political stability
- Political Geography:
- United States and Global Focus
- Publication Identifier:
- 9780231526821
- Publication Identifier Type:
- ISBN
1494. Drones in Our World, part II: The Technicalities
- Author:
- Whitney Grespin
- Publication Date:
- 04-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Abstract:
- In an effort to provide context for this series, this piece will focus on specific equipment competencies that have expanded the capabilities of drones.
- Topic:
- Science and Technology, Military Strategy, and Drones
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
1495. Get "Smart": Paving the Way To A More Efficient Alliance
- Author:
- Young Atlanticists
- Publication Date:
- 05-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Abstract:
- NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen's concept of Smart Defense, defined as "ensuring greater security, for less money, by working together with more flexibility," will be a hot topic at the NATO Summit in Chicago. The Secretary General has stressed that to successfully maintain its strength amid shrinking defense budgets and economic austerity, NATO "must prioritize... must specialize... and must seek multinational solutions." The European Union, much of its membership overlapping with NATO, has endeavored to accomplish a similar task through pooling and sharing, but concerns over sovereignty have severely limited progress. This policy memo provides several recommendations on how NATO can overcome this roadblock to secure state participation in the Smart Defense initiative. As military cooperation remains a sensitive issue, the success of Smart Defense will depend on how well NATO packages and markets these projects. NATO leadership must prove Smart Defense’s utility and dynamism while demonstrating the financial and strategic benefits to be gained by swift and comprehensive implementation. In order to create attractive projects, NATO will have to focus on four policy areas: 1) rework its structure to facilitate a more cooperative environment, 2) provide mechanisms to ensure efficiency, 3) stimulate and secure connections between like-minded states, and 4) find creative ways to include non-NATO actors in Smart Defense projects. It is through these initiatives that Smart Defense’s prospects for success can be raised; a success which is vital if NATO is to become the more efficient and interoperable alliance that its members need.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and European Union
- Political Geography:
- Europe, North America, and United States of America
1496. Pakistan Remains A Question Mark in Lead Up to NATO Summit
- Author:
- Boris Macguire
- Publication Date:
- 05-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Abstract:
- After a decade of war in Afghanistan, world leaders will arrive at May’s NATO Summit in Chicago having finally articulated a plan to transfer control of security to Afghan forces. There has also been increasing pressure on President Obama and the alliance’s leaders to use the summit to announce a timetable for the second stage of the endgame process – the actual extraction of NATO forces. But Pakistan, which has perhaps the greatest stake in NATO’s exit and the endurance of a negotiated settlement with Taliban, has yet to publicly articulate a clear and unified position on the process. Instead, Pakistan has initiated a “strategic pause” in relations, appointing a parliamentary committee on national security to review the country’s official engagement with the United States and NATO. Until the results of the review and the status of U.S.-Pakistan relations are clarified, President Obama and NATO leaders will be severely restricted in their ability to formulate a realistic withdrawal timeline.
- Topic:
- Security, NATO, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, Europe, North Atlantic, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
1497. Drones in Our World, Part III: Non-Kinetic Solutions
- Author:
- Whitney Grespin
- Publication Date:
- 05-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Abstract:
- Drone strikes on militants capture the negative headlines, but increasingly UAVs are winning fans amongst war fighters and civilians by other means. From providing eyes in the sky to taking on high-risk life support missions, the use of unmanned platforms is growing with no slowdown in sight. There are five fronts where UAVs are supporting the troops in ways that exploit their capabilities beyond offensive missions: surveillance/reconnaissance, intelligence, logistics, chronological reach back, and perhaps most surprisingly, community engagement. While context specific intelligence analysis is inseparable from its acquisition via surveillance and reconnaissance missions, it is separable for the purpose of this discussion about UAVs and how they are challenging traditional practices. UAVs can be both tactical and strategic assets – they are not only informing today’s missions, and they do not solely provide data that informs theater level decision making. These systems are achieving both tactical and strategic objectives, and they are sometimes doing so with the same machine in the same mission.
- Topic:
- Intelligence, Science and Technology, Military Strategy, and Drones
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
1498. Missile Defense System Negotiations: Washington-Warsaw-Moscow Triangle
- Author:
- Richard Rousseau
- Publication Date:
- 06-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Abstract:
- When in March 1983 Ronald Reagan announced the initial plans to build a missile defense system purported to be able to “intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our [U.S.] own soil or that of our allies,” he in reality proclaimed the end of the deterrence and so called “balance of terror” doctrines which had formed the basis of the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union during what is known as the Cold War. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), more commonly known at the time as "Star Wars," reformulated the power equation that had underpinned the “détente" period (1971-80). This project was abandoned with the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in1991, which marked the end of the Cold War. However, more than ten years later, President George W. Bush reactivated it, signing bilateral agreements with the Czech Republic and Poland for the deployment of a radar system and advanced land based missile interceptors. With the election of President Barack Obama, the missile defense system was transformed from a bilateral project to a multilateral one, directly involving European allies and the very structure of the NATO alliance. The Kremlin strongly opposed the Euro-American missile deployment project, first in the 1980s and again into the 21th Century. Today as in the past, Russia’s complaints and rhetoric remain basically unchanged. It claims that the shield would compromise the effectiveness of the Russian long-range nuclear arsenal, thus drastically alter the balance of power with the West. A turning point seemed to have taken place at the NATO summit in Lisbon in November 2010. Following a lively debate among diplomats, the European allies unanimously signed an agreement for the deployment of a missile defense system, which would provide “full coverage” of the Alliance area by 2020. More importantly, the final declaration of the summit heralded the birth of “cooperation with Russia in a spirit of reciprocity, maximum transparency and mutual confidence.” However, such good intentions and noble sentiments are regarded as mere words by some, as there is no serious likelihood that both sides will cooperate on a joint defense project of this nature.
- Topic:
- NATO, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Missile Defense
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Poland, North America, and United States of America
1499. From Washington to Seoul: Advancing Nuclear Security Objectives
- Author:
- Olexander Motsyk
- Publication Date:
- 05-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Abstract:
- lexander Motsyk is Ambassador of Ukraine to the U.S. Being a career diplomat, Mr. Motsyk has worked for more than 30 years in the field of foreign relations. Prior to his assignment in the U.S. he served as Ambassador of Ukraine to Turkey and Poland. His diplomatic career also includes such positions as First Deputy Foreign Minister as well as Foreign Policy Advisor to the President of Ukraine. His work was marked by the Commander Cross and Star of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland (2010), The Order of Merit, II Degree (2006) and The Order of Justice, I Degree, of the World Jurist Association (2005). In this op-ed Mr. Motsyk discusses Ukraine’s contribution to global nuclear safety and security and importance of international cooperation to make the world a safer place to live in.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Nuclear Safety
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
1500. What a Tangled Web: India Caught Between U.S. and Iranian Interests
- Author:
- Felix Imonti
- Publication Date:
- 06-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Abstract:
- India is caught between the consequences of provoking a United States driven by its fixation upon the Iranian nuclear program and by an Iran that is a major supplier of oil, providing India with access to its vital interests in Afghanistan. The best that the Ind
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, Energy Policy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Nuclear Power
- Political Geography:
- Iran, Middle East, India, Asia, North America, and United States of America