Op-Eds

Is it all about Winning? Dr Dallas D Owens Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute " Only a few years ago the Army emphasized to itself, the rest of the U.S. defense establishment, and politicians that the Army's primary mission was to fight wars. The 2001 edition of The Army (FM-1) confirmed that, 'the Army's nonnegotiable contract with the American people is to fight and win our Nation's wars.' The Army's core competencies were, except for support to civil authorities, a list of war prevention, preparation, and fighting capabilities."

Strategic Ends in the Middle East LTC Raymond A Millen Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "At times, it is difficult to maintain focus on strategic ends while embroiled in a conflict. This is especially true as soldiers and marines battle Iraqi insurgents under close media scrutiny, while pundits question the Iraq war as a means to the Global War on Terror (GWOT) ends. As a topical issue of rectitude, the decision to invade Iraq needs to pass to the historians—continued debate on that issue is a distraction."

Fighting Insurgents--No Shortcuts to Success Dr James S Corum Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "For the last 3 decades, the Army, the Defense Department, and the CIA have emphasized the high tech aspects of intelligence, sophisticated electronic collection equipment, and multibillion dollar space surveillance programs. Even at the tactical level, Army intelligence personnel are trained primarily to employ a variety of high tech collection means including UAVs, sensors and ground radars. This approach to intelligence collection was appropriate when the intelligence priorities were geared to counting Soviet missile systems or defending the Fulda Gap against a massive Soviet tank attack."

This is Not Your Father's, or Mother's Army! Dr Douglas V Johnson II Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "It would probably strike the average observer as odd or even irrational for the Army to reorganize just as it engages in war, but that seems to be normal for the American Army. In at least three wars, that is exactly what has happened and it is happening again. Had you been an infantry company commander on April 1, 1917, you would have commanded a company of about 58 soldiers armed with 1903 Springfield rifles. By July of that year the company would be 250 strong and equipped with Springfield or possibly British Enfield rifles, heavy and light machineguns, mortars, hand and rifle grenades, and a host of other devices of war new or previously unknown to the U.S. Army."

Debating Ends, not Just Means, in the War on Terror Dr Stephen D Biddle Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "The national security debate tends to focus on means. How much money should we spend? Where should we use force? How should our troops be equipped? Ends, however, ought to shape decisions about means. Yet the ends of American national security usually get less attention than the means. As the nation debates national security in this time of war, what critical questions about the ends of American strategy should we be considering?"

Toward a New U.S. Strategy in Asia Dr Stephen J Blank Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "Uzbekistan has announced that it will offer U.S. forces a base for operations in Afghanistan, and that it does not rule out the possibility of a permanent base if needed. The importance of this cannot be overestimated. Both Russia and China hoped America's incursion into Central Asia was temporary and would end when the terrorism threat abated. Instead, it appears the United States will remain a major player there, not only countering terrorism but also maintaining access to large energy deposits, preserving options for democratizing these states, and establishing a global power projection capability."

An American Way of War or a Way of Battle? Dr Antulio J Echevarria II Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "Serious study of the American approach to waging war began in the early 1970s with the publication of Russell Weigley’s The American Way of War: A History of U.S. Military Strategy and Policy. Examining how war was thought about and practiced by key U.S. military and political figures from George Washington to Robert McNamara, Weigley concluded that, except in the early days of the nation’s existence, the American way of war centered on the desire to achieve a “crushing” military victory—either through a strategy of attrition or one of annihilation—over an adversary."

The Trajectory of Security Transformation Dr Steven Metz Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "For a decade now, a historic revolution in military affairs has unfolded, driven largely by technological developments. Within the U. S. military, immense effort has been expended to understand this revolution and harness it into security transformation. A network of organizations, institutions, and individual experts emerged to shape and energize this process. The result has been the most rigorous and sustained security transformation in human history."

Expanding the Use of State Defense Forces in Homeland Defense Missions LTC Brent C Bankus Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "Current high operational tempo of the active force and the federalized reserves makes it difficult to find adequate numbers of forces to accomplish the many homeland defense missions. As planners attempt to apply the right forces to the proper mission, they need to consider State Defense Forces (SDFs). Planners may be unaware of these forces’ existence; however, they represent an important source of capable manpower to apply within the borders of the various states in the Global War on Terrorism."