Middle East & North Africa

Is Eurasia's Security Order at Risk? Dr Stephen J Blank Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "The foundation stones of European and Eurasian security are the series of treaties beginning with the Helsinki treaty of 1975 and its extension at Moscow in 1991; the 1987 Washington Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear forces in Europe (INF); the 1990 Paris Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE), extended in 1999; and the Paris and Rome treaties between NATO and Russia in 1997 and 2002. However, some, if not all, of these treaties are apparently at risk. In 2005 Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivano, told U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that Russia was thinking of withdrawing from the INF Treaty. Although nothing came of this gambit, a lower-ranking Russian general restated this interest in early, 2006, obviously at his superiors’ instigation."

U.S. Military Operations in Iraq: Planning, Combat and Occupation Mr Shane Lauth, Ms Kate Phillips, Ms Erin Schenck, Dr W Andrew Terrill Colloquium Report by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies "Even before Operation IRAQI FREEDOM began, the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) published a monograph about planning for transition to Phase IV operations. Now that we are 3 years beyond the start of that transition, the debate continues about the adequacy of planning for and proficiency of execution of Phase IV operations in Iraq and elsewhere. The debate most often surrounds three issues concerning this final operational phase: the relationship to preceding operational phases; responsibility for planning; and responsibility for execution. Inevitably, the interagency process becomes central to addressing each of these issues."

CU @ The FOB: How the Forward Operating Base is Changing the Life of Combat Soldiers Dr Stephen J Gerras, Dr Leonard Wong Monograph by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "This inquiry has been conducted in the midst of increasing questioning by policymakers and scholars concerning the importance and role of alliances and other multilateral arrangements and legal norms affecting the use of force by the United States. Provoked in part by the transatlantic altercations surrounding Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, the questioning is driven by systemic developments—changes in the structure of world politics and changes in the shape of war—of which the Iraq-focused disputes were a symptom."

Training Indigenous Forces in Counterinsurgency: A Tale of Two Insurgencies Dr James S Corum Monograph by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "This monograph examines the British experience in building and training indigenous police and military forces during the Malaya and Cyprus insurgencies. The two insurgencies provide a dramatic contrast to the issue of training local security forces. In Malaya, the British developed a very successful strategy for training the Malayan police and army. In Cyprus, the British strategy for building and training local security forces generally was ineffective. The author argues that some important lessons can be drawn from these case studies that apply directly to current U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine."

Revisions in Need of Revising: What Went Wrong in the Iraq War Dr David C Hendrickson, Dr Robert W Tucker Monograph by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "David C. Hendrickson and Robert W. Tucker examine the contentious debate over the Iraq war and occupation, focusing on the critique that the Bush administration squandered an historic opportunity to reconstruct the Iraqi state because of various critical blunders in planning. Though they conclude that critics have made a number of telling points against the Bush administration’s conduct of the Iraq war, they argue that the most serious problems facing Iraq and its American occupiers—criminal anarchy and lawlessness, a raging insurgency, and a society divided into rival and antagonistic groups—were virtually inevitable consequences that flowed from the act of war itself."

The Danger of Seeking Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq Dr W Andrew Terrill Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "In a June 25, 2005, address to the nation, President George W. Bush stated, “We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed—and not a day longer.” This statement may initially appear unremarkable, but it is nevertheless an important and valuable assertion of policy that can be usefully applied to the concept of long-term basing rights in Iraq."

Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran Mr Patrick Clawson, Mr Henry D Sokolski Monograph by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "Little more than a year ago, the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC) completed its initial analysis of Iran’s nuclear program, Checking Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions. Since then, Tehran’s nuclear activities and public diplomacy have only affirmed what this analysis first suggested: Iran is not about to give up its effort to make nuclear fuel and, thereby, come within days of acquiring a nuclear bomb. Iran’s continued pursuit of uranium enrichment and plutonium recycling puts a premium on asking what a more confident nuclear-ready Iran might confront us with and what we might do now to hedge against these threats."

Precedents, Variables, and Options in Planning a U.S. Military Disengagement Strategy from Iraq Dr Conrad C Crane, Dr W Andrew Terrill Monograph by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "The United States is engaged in a massive effort to rehabilitate the government and political culture of Iraq, following the destruction of the Saddam Hussein regime in spring 2003. The U.S. goal and ideal for Iraq is the establishment and maintenance of a strong, self-sufficient, and forward-looking government. Currently, Iraq is in transition, as that country’s political leaders seek to establish a new, more representative form of government, while at the same time attempting to cope with a vicious ongoing insurgency. To accomplish these tasks, the government needs significant U.S. military support which will be reduced and then eliminated over time as the Iraqis hopefully become more self-sufficient."

The Global War on Terror: Mistaking Ideology as the Center of Gravity LTC Cheryl L Smart Issue Paper by the US Army War College, Center for Strategic Leadership "The Cold War was portrayed as an epic clash of two ideologies – Western Democracy versus Communism. Section IV of the defining cold war document, National Security Council 68 (NSC 68), was entitled “The Underlying Conflict in the Realm of Ideas and Values between the U.S. Purpose and the Kremlin Design,” and it argued that the basic conflict was between ideas – “the idea of freedom under a government of laws, and the idea of slavery under the grim oligarchy of the Kremlin.” The adversary resided in the Soviet Union and violence in other regions in the world – including terrorist violence – was exported from or used by this center of Communism. Today, the war of ideas is Western Democracy versus Salafi Islam..."