Archive

National Security Strategy Reform: Rebalancing the President's Agenda Dr Robert H Dorff Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "The common wisdom about presidential success in achieving major goals is simple: Focus on only one or at most two major initiatives. Presidents who try to accomplish too much risk accomplishing nothing, and multiple agenda items distract the team from “staying on message” providing ample opportunity for opponents to undermine the efforts."

Mind-Sets and Missiles: a First Hand Account of the Cuban Missile Crisis Mr Kenneth Michael Absher Letort Paper by US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "This Letort Paper provides a detailed chronology and analysis of the intelligence failures and successes of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The author, Mr. Kenneth Absher, contends that, when our national security is at stake, the United States should not hesitate to undertake risky intelligence collection operations, including espionage, to penetrate our adversary’s deceptions. At the same time, the United States must also understand that our adversary may not believe the gravity of our policy warnings or may not allow its own agenda to be influenced by U.S. diplomatic pressure."

Iraq: Strategic Reconciliation, Targeting, and Key Leader Engagement Capt Jeanne F Hull Letort Paper by US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "Military commanders and diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan have been meeting with important local officials since the inception of those conflicts. These Key Leader Engagements (or KLE as they are now termed) have aided commanders and diplomats alike in furthering their objectives by establishing productive relationships with those who know and understand Iraq’s complex human terrain best—the Iraqis. However, these engagements frequently take place on ad-hoc bases and are rarely incorporated into other counterinsurgency operations and strategies. In some cases, unit commanders fail to see the utility of using KLE at all—an oversight that contributes to deteriorating security situations and loss of popular support. "

A Comprehensive Approach to Improving U.S. Security Force Assistance Efforts LTC Theresa Baginski, COL Brian J Clark, LTC Francis Donovan, Ms Karma Job, LTC John S Kolasheski, COL Richard A Lacquement Jr, COL Michael J McMahon, Brigadier Simon "Don" Roach, COL Sean P Swindell, COL Curt A Van De Walle Letort Paper by US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "Current operations, demands of persistent conflict, and enduring U.S. national security interests underscore the immediate and continuing need to improve U.S. Security Force Assistance (SFA) efforts. The frequency and importance of such activities throughout U.S. history demonstrate that the current requirements are not anomalies. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been challenged to accomplish key national security goals due to a lack of capability and capacity to effectively advise, utilize, and partner with foreign security forces."

The Role of Cuban Paramilitary Organizations (People's Militias) in the Post-Castro Era Dr Max G Manwaring Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "Armed nonstate groups all over the world are directly challenging targeted governments’ physical and moral right and ability to govern. This almost chronic chaos is exacerbated by traditional nationstate actors using nonstate popular militias, youth leagues, gangs, or their equivalents to help the take control, maintain control, or regain control of a given political-economic-social entity. It is in this context that popular militias have been organized, trained, and nurtured in Cuba."

Pakistan - The Most Dangerous Place in the World Dr Larry P Goodson Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "Pakistan is the most dangerous foreign policy problem facing the United States for five major reasons. First, Pakistan is a nuclear country, with at least 60 nuclear warheads (according to both journalistic and unclassified U.S. Government sources), a regular supply of fissile material with which to make more, multiple delivery systems, and a history as a known proliferator. Pakistan developed nuclear weapons because of its long and bloody history with its bigger next-door neighbor, India, to which it has lost four major military conflicts since 1947. They have not squared off again since the Kargil Conflict of 1999, and the world holds its breath over their next spat."

China's Maritime Quest Dr David Lai Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) turned 60 on April 23, 2009. China held an unprecedented celebration on this occasion. For the first time in its history, China invited foreign navies to the PLAN’s birthday event. Chinese President Hu Jintao and all the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) senior leaders reviewed a parade of China’s major warships from a Chinese destroyer."

Strategic Implications of Emerging Technologies Dr Antulio J Echevarria II Colloquium Brief by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "The USAWC’s Strategic Studies Institute held its 20th Annual Strategy Conference on April 14-16, 2009, at Carlisle Barracks. This year’s focus, “Strategic Implications of Emerging Technologies,” was intended to look beyond the noted importance of advances in the field of cyber and information technologies to raise awareness of other technology areas which thus far have received less visibility. The conference explored biogenetics, biometrics, nanotechnologies, robotics, artificial intelligence, alternative energies, electromagnetic weaponry, nuclear power, and global warming. Approximately 135 attendees along with 19 panelists and speakers participated. As anticipated, the conference brought together a diverse group of scholars and individuals from the defense community and academia."

Preventing Iraq from Slipping Back into Sectarian Chaos Dr W Andrew Terrill Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "It is at least possible, if not likely, that different choices on two key 2003 U.S. decisions would have allowed the United States to withdraw most of its troops from Iraq well before the present date. The two decisions that are now widely understood to have been disastrous mistakes are the dissolution of the Iraqi Army and the decision to pursue harsh punitive actions against vast numbers of former Ba’ath party members beyond the leadership of Saddam’s regime. Both decisions alienated Iraq’s Sunni Arabs and opened the door for a strong al-Qaeda presence in Iraq..."