Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Strategy Political Geography United States

211. 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

212. 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

213. 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

214. 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