Welcome to the Summer 2025 issue of Parameters. The issue consists of one In Focus special commentary and three forums (Indo-Pacific Challenges, Russia-Ukraine Issues, and Historical Studies). In our In Focus forum special commentary, “The Next National Defense Strategy: Mission-Based Force Planning,” Frank Hoffman argues that the Pentagon should embrace a new methodology called mission-based planning to size and shape the defense enterprise properly. He summarizes and critiques several proposals for reestablishing the long-standing two major theater war construct in the face of ongoing shifts in the strategic environment and offers a mission-priority alternative.
The first forum, Indo-Pacific Challenges, features two articles. In the first, “China’s Role in a Future Korean War,” Jake Rinaldi examines China–North Korea relations and the strategic drivers and options for Chinese intervention in a future conflict on the Korean Peninsula. In the second article, “Strategic Narratives to Counter Global Threats,” Jerry Landrum, Chase Metcalf, and Michael Posey claim the current National Security Strategy lacks the necessary narrative coherence and fidelity to mobilize collective action against the emerging Russia-China axis.
The second forum, Russia-Ukraine Issues, contains two articles. In the first, “A More Perfect Peace: Can the Russia-Ukraine War End Justly?,” Nathaniel Davis and Marlon Thomas examine jus post bellum principles and their application to the Russia-Ukraine War and contend that Ukraine relinquishing Crimea and the Donbas in exchange for NATO membership could foster long-term peace. In the second article, “What the Russia-Ukraine Conflict Tells Us about Educational Resilience,” Jason Jabbari presents a novel conceptual framework of the primary mechanisms across seven unique domains by which education can serve as a key area of resiliency or vulnerability in armed conflicts. He uses Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to illustrate his model and the potential role of civil affairs in a post-conflict scenario.
The third forum, Historical Studies, showcases two articles. In “The Enduring Lessons of Vietnam: Implications for US Strategy and Policy,” Martin Clemis contends that the United States lost the Vietnam War because it privileged military strength and battlefield victory at the expense of other elements of national power. His examination underscores the need to reevaluate the American way of war and create a more holistic strategic framework. In the second article, “Restoring the Primacy of Army Mobilization Planning: Lessons from the Interwar Period (1919–41),” Tim Devine argues that the US Army must restore the primacy of mobilization planning to prepare for the probability of a protracted large-scale war involving the United States. Analyzing the body of thought on this topic during the interwar period, he identifies insights, challenges, and recommendations for military leaders and policymakers. ~AJE