In November 1997, the United States Army War College joined with the U.S. Southern Command, the Inter-American Defense Board, the National Guard Bureau, and the Latin American Consortium of the University of New Mexico and New Mexico State University to cosponsor a conference entitled "The Role of the Armed Forces in the Americas: Civil-Military Relations for the 21st Century." The meeting was held from 3 to 6 November in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and was hosted by the New Mexico National Guard.
The conference brought together over 150 prominent civilian governmental and military leaders and some of the most noted scholars from throughout the Americas. It was designed to support the Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Southern Command's objectives of strengthening democratic institutions, assisting nations in eliminating threats to their security, supporting economic and social progress, and enhancing military professionalism. In addition, the meeting sought to promote the Army Chief of Staff's goals of conflict prevention through peacetime engagement, strategic outreach to organizations and institutions outside the Department of Defense, and the enhancement of Active and Reserve component integration. Included in this publication are the papers and speeches delivered at the conference, rapporteurs' synopses of the working group discussions and an analysis, with recommendations, of the implications for civil-military relations and U.S. policy. These presentations, the level and scope of participation, the candor of the dialogue, the outstanding support provided by our cosponsors, and the charming atmosphere of Santa Fe all contributed to making the meeting a success.
Few foreign policy issues have been more frustrating to the U.S. Government during the past year than the Haitian crisis. Thus, this report could not be more timely. The title is suggestive. The authors describe different courses of action and the steps that the United States might take to implement them. None of the choices are attractive and none of them can guarantee success. However, because the situation facing the Haitian people continues to worsen, the sooner we come to terms with that situation the better. Drs. Schulz and Marcella have made a major contribution to that process through their careful delineation of the "irreconcilable" elements in the Haitian "equation," their careful analysis of the various options available to U.S. policymakers, and the course of action which they have recommended.
In January 1996, the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) hosted a conference on "Asian Security to the Year 2000." No region of the world has greater potential for expanded influence on American interests. This compendium of papers from the conference examines the security policies being pursued by many of the key Asian actors--China, the Koreas, Pakistan, and the nations of Southeast Asia, particularly those in ASEAN. The contributors to this volume paint the picture of a dynamic and diverse Asia on the verge of the new century. Each author identifies the critical issues which frame both challenges and opportunities for U.S. foreign, economic, and security policies.
Ten years have elapsed since the fall of the Berlin Wall, which served as a fitting symbol for the end of the Cold War. That historic juncture brought into question the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has served Alliance members so well since its founding in 1949. It also brought into question the rationale for America's continued deep involvement in European security affairs. With the gradual realization that the Russian menace is essentially dead, at least for the next 10 to 15 years and perhaps longer, and with NATO's missions having evolved well beyond the original purpose of territorial defense, debate on both sides of the Atlantic has begun to intensify concerning the vital issue of where NATO should be headed and America's relation to the Alliance.
The contemporary debate over the expansion of NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary has largely overshadowed an important effort on the part of the Alliance to achieve "internal adaptation" through the work of the Long-Term Study. Part of this process has been a tortuous attempt to reform and reorganize the Alliance's integrated command structure. Often taken for granted, this structure provides the basis for NATO's collective defense, and increasingly, as seen in Bosnia, its ability to undertake peace support operations. However, the very value by which nations hold the structure has resulted in a difficult and time-consuming reorganization process which has produced only limited reforms. It is indeed surprising that the reorganization of the bedrock of the Alliance's military structure has garnered only limited attention outside of NATO cognoscenti. This can be explained, in part, by the fact that until recently the Long-Term Study has been cloaked in secrecy. Most key aspects of the reform process are now out in the public and require debate: a task in which the Strategic Studies Institute is keen to assist. And, let there be no mistake that the proposed reforms outlined by Long-Term Study have major implications for land forces in the Alliance. As argued in this essay, there are a number of proposed reforms which could have fundamental negative implications for command of these forces.
On August 4-5, 1997, the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), together with the Reserve Officers Association, cosponsored a conference in Prague on "Eurasian Security in the Era of NATO Enlargement." In order to clarify fully the emerging security agenda in Europe and hear from member states and other interested parties, SSI invited analysts and officials from all of the Central and East European countries, including those invited to join NATO, those not invited, and those former Soviet states with a vital interest in the outcome, e.g., Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. The panelists provided assessments of their respective countries' perspectives, of their own governments' policies, and of how they see emerging trends in European security issues. The chapters in this monograph offer a representative selection of the papers presented at the conference. By publishing them, SSI offers our readers a broad spectrum of views, including some not often heard, on the issues connected with NATO enlargement. In this manner, SSI seeks to shed fuller light on what could be the single most important national security issue to appear before Congress and other Alliance legislatures in 1998.
The publication of this compendium could not be more timely as a contribution to the debate which continues in NATO capitals. NATO is an alliance based on consensus. It is also the most effective military alliance in history; this is largely due to the existence of its integrated and multinational command structure. That command structure, the cement of the Alliance as it were, derives from the mutual obligations contained in Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty. This contractual obligation, which does not exist for the other missions which have arisen since 1990, means that the defense of NATO territory must be the basis of any restructuring. If we were to move away from this and thus weaken the command structure, even with the best intentions, then it is my firm conviction that we would do serious harm to the Alliance and its future. On the other hand, a modified command structure, still based on the Article V contractual obligation, provides a firm basis, as well as flexibility, versatility, and availability for any non- contractual, namely out-of-area, requirement. Command structures do not exist of their own accord. They come into being, change, and develop, to permit commanders at the appropriate level, from top to bottom, to orchestrate the application of military force at sea, in the air, and on land. There is, however, a limit to which one can impose responsibilities on commanders, who after all are personally responsible for the conduct of operations, and a limit to the amount of specialization and detail with which they can cope. This is why we have hierarchical command structures with each commander dealing with the appropriate level of competence. It is why at certain levels command should be joint and at others purely functional. How many levels of command are needed will be dictated by the operations factors of time, forces, and space.
As recent events demonstrate, Russia's political system has yet to stabilize. This is particularly the case with civil-military relations for, as the course of the Chechnya invasion reveals, control by the government over the military is erratic and the military is all too often politicized. In this vein, legislation on civilian control of the military and on peacemaking operations in Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is a particularly important barometer of the course of Russia's democratization and stabilization. Dr. Stephen Blank dissects that legislation and finds that it reflects and contributes to the drift away from democratic rule towards a form of presidential power that is unaccountable to either legal or parliamentary institutions. Furthermore, these laws will also politicize the military still further and promote the use of Russian armed forces in so-called peacemaking operations that actually contribute to Moscow's openly proclaimed program to reintegrate the CIS around it. Therefore, these draft laws should arouse considerable concern among those charged with, or interested in, monitoring Russia's troubled evolution to democracy.
In October 2002, the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, in coordination with the Office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff/G-3, initiated a study to analyze how American and coalition forces can best address the requirements that will necessarily follow operational victory in a war with Iraq. The objectives of the project were to determine and analyze probable missions for military forces in a post-Saddam Iraq; examine associated challenges; and formulate strategic recommendations for transferring responsibilities to coalition partners or civilian organizations, mitigating local animosity, and facilitating overall mission accomplishment in the war against terrorism. The study has much to offer planners and executors of operations to occupy and reconstruct Iraq, but also has many insights that will apply to achieving strategic objectives in any conflict after hostilities are concluded. The current war against terrorism has highlighted the danger posed by failed and struggling states. If this nation and its coalition partners decide to undertake the mission to remove Saddam Hussein, they will also have to be prepared to dedicate considerable time, manpower, and money to the effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fighting is over. Otherwise, the success of military operations will be ephemeral, and the problems they were designed to eliminate could return or be replaced by new and more virulent difficulties.
In an attempt to regain some control of the strategic commodity, Washington developed special relationships with the two foremost oil procedures, Iran (under the Shah) and Saudi Arabia. In 1979 the Shah was overthrown and, with the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini, America became—in the eyes of Iranians—the Great Satan. By 1991, with the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf war, America was once again the dominant power in the region. But, as this study shows, America's position is hardly secure. Much of the difficulty Washington is experiencing derives from what the author regards as a poorly conceived policy. Dual Containment, promulgated in 1993, was supposed to constrain the two most powerful area states, Iran and Iraq, by imposing harsh economic sanctions on them. But, the author contends, the policy has only antagonized America's allies, while Baghdad and Tehran continue to defy Washington and threaten the oil sheikhdoms Washington is trying to protect. The Dual Containment policy must be changed, the author believes. And foremost, the practice of trying to police Iraq by aerial bombing should be abandoned. This tactic is counterproductive, according to the author; it is driving the Iraqis to rally behind the regime of Saddam Hussein, the very outcome Washington is seeking to discourage.