Archive

Alliances and American National Security Dr Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall Letort Paper by US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "One of the greatest challenges facing the United States today is the translation of its overwhelming might into effective influence. Traditionally, the United States has leveraged its power through bilateral and multilateral alliances. However, the end of the Cold War and the events of September 11, 2001, have led some policymakers and analysts to question the value of alliances in American foreign and defense policy."

Defense, Development, and Diplomacy (3D): Canadian and U.S. Military Perspectives Dr Max G Manwaring Colloquium Brief by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, with Queens University, and the Canadian Land Forces Doctrine and Training System "War has changed. New organizing principles require a new paradigm that facilitates change from a singular military approach to a multidimensional, multi organizational, and multilateral/multinational whole-of-government and whole-of-alliance/coalition approach to deal more effectively with the contemporary global security reality."

"What If?" -- A Most Impertinent Question Indeed Mr Nathan P Freier Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "We are in an era of persistent, purposeful, and increasingly complex resistance to American primacy. Unfortunately, the strategic discourse necessary to guide us through our current predicament has yet to coalesce around an appropriate logic. Despite 5 years of irregular conflict, military purists in and out of uniform continue their search for clean boundaries between war and peace—boundaries that will again allow them to focus on the most traditional conceptions of “warfighting” at the expense of those concepts and capabilities necessary to our success against the likeliest and most strategically consequential future challenges."

The Future of Transatlantic Security Relations Mr Patrick B Baetjer, Dr Joseph R Cerami, LTG Richard A Chilcoat Colloquium Report by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute Sponsored by: U.S. Army’s Dwight D. Eisenhower National Security Series, U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, The European Union Center for Excellence at Texas A&M University, The George Bush Presidential Library Foundation, The George Bush School of Government and Public Service "The Transatlantic Security Relationship has been an anchor of European and U.S. foreign policy since the closing days of World War II. As the conflict drew to a close, a new one rose from its ashes. The Cold War and its many harrowing moments reinforced, time and again, the importance of maintaining close ties and mutual understanding across the ocean—a distance that has grown ever smaller in this age of globalization."

Doctrine that Works Dr Douglas V Johnson II Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College Press " I recently spent a morning talking with a scholar who is researching material for a book on the U.S. Army’s willingness to learn about war above the tactical and operational level. His thesis echoes, to some degree, Dr. Antulio Echevarria’s monograph that concludes that there is an American Way of Battle, but not an “American Way of War,” as Russell F. Weigley’s well-studied book suggests. This scholar was asking for evidence to identify change points in the development of U.S. Army thinking about war during the decades of the 1970s and 1980s."

Canadian Defense Policy--A breath of Fresh Air Dr Alex Crowther Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "Canada and the United States closely cooperated in most security issues during the 20th century. In recent years, however, security relations between Canada and the United States have become strained, mainly due to disagreements on the methods used by the United States in prosecuting the Global War on Terror. The first policy issue was the Canadian government’s decision to decrease security resources significantly in the wake of the Cold War. The second issue centers on Canada’s disagreement concerning Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, as well as other U.S. policy decisions such as the use of Guantanamo Bay."

Value Projection and American Foreign Policy Dr Douglas J Macdonald Op-Ed by the US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "The controversies over the Bush administration’s “doctrine” of promoting democracy as a long-term goal of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) have raised once again that hardy perennial in the debate over American foreign policy: value projection. The debate juxtaposes two basic positions: the Jeffersonian idea that the United States should, when possible, serve as an active agent for the spread of democratic values in the world, and the Washingtonian idea that we should serve as a model for the rest of the world by developing democracy at home, not by taking actions to foster it abroad."

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."

Strategic Planning by the Chairmen, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1990 TO 2005 Dr Richard M Meinhart Letort Paper by US Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute "Military leaders at many levels have used strategic planning in various ways to position their organizations to respond to the demands of the current situation, while simultaneously focusing on future challenges. This Letort Paper examines how four Chairmen Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1990 to 2005 used a strategic planning system to enable them to meet their statutory responsibilities specified in Title 10 US Code and respond to the ever-changing strategic environment. These responsibilities include: assisting the President and Secretary of Defense in providing strategic direction to the armed forces; conducting strategic planning and net assessments to determine military capabilities; preparing contingency planning and assessing preparedness; and providing advice on requirements, programs, and budgets."