Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Strategy Political Geography United States

201. The Military Strategy of Global Jihad

Author:
Sarah E. Zabel
Publication Date:
10-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
America entered the Global War on Terrorism with little understanding of the enemy it faced. Al-Qaeda plays a leading role in the larger movement of global jihad, a splinter faction of militant Islamism intent on establishing its vision of strict Islamic rule in the Muslim world through armed action. Global jihadis have spent more than 40 years refining their philosophy, gaining experience, building their organization, and developing plans to reestablish what they see as the only true Islamic state on earth. The September 11, 2001 (9/11), attacks set this plan in motion.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Islam, Terrorism, War, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
United States

202. Beyond Bush: A New Strategy of Constriction to Defeat Al Qaeda and its Allies

Author:
Matt Bennett and Sharon Burke
Publication Date:
03-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
Five years after President George Bush declared that America would act decisively to "rid the world of evil," terrorism continues to pose an urgent threat to our national security. In fact, an overwhelming majority of national security experts believe that the United States is actually losing the "war on terror."
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Terrorism, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
United States and America

203. Troop Levels in Stability Operations: What We Don’t Know

Author:
Peter Krause
Publication Date:
02-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Troop levels in Iraq have been one of the most hotly contested issues om American foreign policy over the past three years, from debates over the initial deployment in 2003 to those surrounding the troop surge in 2007. The Bush administration has faced significant criticism for ignoring the conventional wisdom regarding the number of soldiers required to secure Iraq, and recent attempts to change course in this area are seen by some as too little, too late. Specifically, the Pentagon’s deployment of only 120,000 American troops for the invasion and the decision by Paul Bremer, U.S. Administrator in Iraq, to disband the Iraqi army and police has kept the ratio of security forces to Iraqi civilians well below the 20 per 1,000 seen as the basic ante required to play the high stakes stabilization game. Many supporters of higher troop levels blame these missteps for the emergence of the robust insurgency and the coalition’s failure to defeat it. But where exactly does the 20 per 1,000 figure come from, how strong is the evidence sup- porting it, and what steps are being taken to assess and improve the conventional wisdom in this area? While the answer to the first part of the question is relatively accessible, the latter are more difficult. They address a daunting problem, but unveil a disconnect between the objectives and methods of policy and social science.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Iraq War, and Troop Deployment
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, and North America

204. North Korea: Negotiations Work

Author:
Leon V. Sigal
Publication Date:
02-2007
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
In a laudable about-face, President Bush has decided at last to accept North Korea's longstanding offer to suspend production of plutonium by shutting down and sealing its reactor and reprocess- ing plant at Yongbyon, halting construction of a larger reactor and not restarting a newly refurbished fuel fabrication plant. In so doing, he is rejecting the counsel of American hardliners who have kept the United States from making and living up to earlier agreements while managing to convince much of America that it is North Korea that has been the one at fault. By negotiating in earnest, Bush has achieved an important goal for U.S. and Asian security.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

205. The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal: Triumph of the Business Lobby

Author:
Subrata Ghoshroy
Publication Date:
09-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
South Asia has come a long way since the days of SEATO and CENTO1 —the U.S.- sponsored pacts to contain China and keep India under check. Gone are the days when the Seventh Fleet flexed its muscle on the Bay of Bengal in support of a beleaguered Pakistan in its military campaign against the “mukti bahini”—the freedom fighters in erstwhile East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. Once the leader of the non-aligned, the Indian government has not expressed even a whimper of protest about what has been happening to Iraq, Lebanon, or Gaza. India and the United States now are “natural allies,” apparently forged primarily by mutual economic interests. But there was the China factor as well. Although left unsaid, China entered in to the calculation of both India and the United States. The Bush administration is careful not to revive the notion of the Cold War policy of containing China, but many in the Congress are not so reticent. At the same time, the Indian government is equally careful to highlight the growing normalization of relations and the growing trade ties with Beijing. But the clamor in the security community in New Delhi is all about countering China—a topic I heard repeatedly during my recent visit to the region. So its importance cannot be discounted. But the economic incentives of the deal have not earned as much scrutiny, a major oversight in the public discourse.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Deterrence, and Denuclearization
Political Geography:
United States, China, India, Asia, and North America

206. Addressing Iraq in a Charged Political Environment - Winning the Debate Over the War

Author:
Matt Bennett
Publication Date:
08-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
This memo describes how progressives candidates can attack their opponents’ lack of action on Iraq, characterizing them as “satisfied” with the Bush plan for a permanent US presence there and with all other aspects of the Bush administration’s leadership on the war. It goes on to lay out a number of policy ideas to help change course in Iraq and move America toward success in the war.
Topic:
Imperialism, Military Strategy, Elections, and Conflict
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, and North America

207. Boots On The Ground: Increasing the Size of the Army To Meet The Missions of the 21st Century

Author:
Aaron Scholer
Publication Date:
05-2005
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
In the wake of 9/11 and the war in Iraq, the United States Army has been asked to shoulder enormous burdens with a force that remains almost unchanged in size since it was drawn-down following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The occupation of Iraq and other duties around the world have required the greatest sustained deployment of the American military since the height of the Vietnam War, but the Army has not been allowed to take substantive, permanent measures to grow larger to meet this challenge. Moreover, despite a dramatic 37% increase in defense spending since 9/11, the Bush Administration has yet to request a permanent increase in size for our main fighting force. Consequently, the Army is facing the greatest mismatch between its mission and its manpower since the mid-1930s, when Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur, deeply concerned about the military's thin ranks and the lack of urgency in government circles about that state of affairs, remarked that “the secrets of our weakness are secrets only to our own people.”
Topic:
Defense Policy and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, and Soviet Union

208. Getting to “Yes” on Missile Defense: The Need to Rebalance U.S. Priorities & The Prospects for Transatlantic Cooperation

Author:
Jeffrey P. Bialos and Stuart L. Koehl
Publication Date:
01-2004
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Transatlantic Relations
Abstract:
At the end of the day, missile defense is and should be here to stay as a key element of U.S., and in all likelihood, European defense strategy for the twenty-first century. The threats are real and there is an emerging consensus about creating defenses against it. While the “macro” issues of ABM withdrawal and initial fielding of the U.S. midcourse segment are behind us, there are very legitimate issues that warrant debate on both sides of the Atlantic. We now need to focus on making the right choices to provide a better balance of capabilities between various strategic, regional, force protection, and homeland security needs. Moreover, U.S.-European engagement on missile defense is potentially, but not inevitably, a win-win proposition—binding alliance partners together geo-politically, creating a layered, multi-national plug and play “system of system” architecture, and enhancing our ability to fight wars together. And, an enhanced coalition war fighting capability is likely to have beneficial spillover effects on the broader Transatlantic relationship; it is axiomatic that countries that fight wars together tend to have congruent interests in a range of areas. But for this to happen, Europe needs to begin to seriously consider its missile defense needs soon and apply resources to the task and the United States needs to resolve the underlying technology transfer issues and questions of roles and responsibilities. Thus, with hard work and good will, multi-national cooperation between the United States and its allies offers “win-win” from the standpoint of strengthening the alliance and our mutual security.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, Weapons, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:
United States, China, and Europe