Archive

Beyond the Battlefield: Institutional Army Transformation Following Victory in Iraq LTC G Scott Taylor Letort Paper by US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "The U.S. Army goes to great lengths to capture lessons learned and preserve these lessons for current practitioners and future generations. Though the Army is one of the most self-critical organizations found in American society, a well-deserved reputation has also been earned for failing to inculcate those lessons by transforming the institutional Army. Change is achieved through a continuous cycle of adaptive innovation, experimentation, and experience. In Iraq, out of necessity while in contact with a dynamic enemy, the Army transformed on the battlefield with radical changes in doctrine, organization, training, and materiel, which significantly enabled battlefield success."

A "Hollow Army" Reappraised: President Carter, Defense Budgets, and the Politics of Military Readiness Prof Frank L Jones Letort Paper by US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "The term “hollow army” became a part of the American political vocabulary more than 30 years ago, in another election year, 1980. Highlighted by a reporter in an article about the U.S. Army Chief of Staff’s congressional testimony concerning the fiscal year 1981 defense budget, the term became a metaphor for the Jimmy Carter administration’s alleged neglect of U.S. national security by political opponents as well as disapproving members of his own party in Congress, who believed him to be a liability..."

Real Leadership and the U.S. Army: Overcoming a Failure of Imagination to Conduct Adaptive Work COL John B Richardson IV Letort Paper by US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "Former Army Chief of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey has highlighted “failure of imagination” as a major obstacle in an organization’s ability to learn, adapt, and find solutions to complex problems. As a former Commanding General of the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), General Dempsey led the redesign of the Army’s conceptual foundation. He and other Army officials, reflecting on the previous decade’s conflicts, aggressively instituted a campaign of learning, which TRADOC describes as “a broad set of initiatives designed to produce an Army capable of rapidly adapting to defeat unforeseen threats.”"

The Afghanistan Question and the Reset in U.S.-Russian Relations Dr Richard J Krickus Letort Paper by US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "U.S. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said that the ability of the United States and Russia to cooperate in Afghanistan will be a solid test of their reset in relations. That proposition is the thesis of this monograph. Many analysts in both countries would agree with this assessment, but a significant number of them believe a fruitful reset is implausible."

Adapting, Transforming, and Modernizing Under Fire: The Mexican Military 2006-11 Mr Inigo Guevara Moyano Letort Paper by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "Since President Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006, Mexico has embarked upon the implementation of a culture of law and security that has triggered a war with organized crime. This war has involved all sectors of society and has activated a series of renovations in its armed forces, which to date remain the most trusted institutions in Mexican society. This groundbreaking Letort Paper is an important contribution to an understanding of the structure, culture, motivators, and challenges of the Mexican military in the 21st century..."

Understanding the North Korea Problem: Why It Has Become the "Land of Lousy Options" COL William A Boik Letort Paper by US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "This monograph is intended to draw attention to the challenges faced by the United States in developing a coordinated strategy for dealing with North Korea. Despite the many decades of direct U.S. involvement on the Korean Peninsula, we continue to have little understanding of the North Korean culture or of events inside North Korea. We also do not have a long-term coordinated strategy for North Korea. Over the past decade, the United States has focused much of its attention on the Middle East and the War on Terror, and seems to only focus on North Korea in response to crises when they arise on the peninsula. "

The Military's Role in Counterterrorism: Examples and Implications for Liberal Democracies Dr Geraint Hughes Letort Paper by US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks, the U.S. Government was criticized for adopting a militaristic response to the threat posed by al-Qaeda and affiliated groups. As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that in Northern Ireland demonstrate, any liberal democracy that uses its armed forces to combat terrorism will incur controversy both domestically and internationally."

Junior Leader Professional Development — Who Has the Time? Dr Steven Metz Op-ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "While researching General Matthew Ridgway’s oral history at the Military History Institute, author Tom Ricks came across this astute quote: “My advice to any young officer is read—read—read. And learn from the successes of the great ones and their failures.” Few Americans speak with greater authority on the requirements of military leadership than Ridgway. He commanded the 82nd Airborne Division in World War II; the 8th Army in the Korean War; replaced Douglas MacArthur as the overall commander in Korea; served as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; and then as Army Chief of Staff. He was both an exceptional leader and a strategist. We should heed what Ridgway had to say."

Improvised Explosive Devices in Iraq, 2003-09: A Case of Operational Surprise and Institutional Response Brigadier Andrew Smith Letort Paper by US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "The threat of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that has emerged in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003 is a contemporary example of conventional militaries being confronted with a tactical surprise with operational—if not strategic—implications. Those implications can necessitate “institutional” responses to avoid strategic defeat in what, for many countries, are “wars of discretion.” Operational surprise, as defined in this examination, differs from strategic shocks as described by Nathan Freier, and the necessary responses are distinct from the military adaptations considered by John Nagl. The paper contends that the 6-year evolution of the IED experience from 2003 until 2009 constitutes a complete cycle of surprise and response, of which the most significant part is the institutional response."