Search

Begin New Search Topic War Political Geography United States

361. Operation Iraqi Freedom: Theater Air and Missile Defense History

Author:
Howard B. Bromberg
Publication Date:
05-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
Although we did not fully realize it at the time, our planning for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and our role in the Global War on Terrorism actually started within minutes after the attack on the World Trade Center. On September 11, 2001, the command began assuming roles in three major operations which culminated over nineteen months later with the Coalition victory in removing the Regime of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people and the region from his threats.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and War
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, and Middle East

362. Why German-US Relations Still Matter to the Transatlantic Alliance—One Year after War in Iraq

Author:
Michaela C. Hertkorn
Publication Date:
12-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Columbia International Affairs Online
Abstract:
A declaration on NATO transformation of October 6, 2002 stated the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needed to be “capable of taking action whenever the security of its members was threatened, upon the basis of the United Nations Charter. By making it clear that there is no safe haven for those who would threaten our societies or for those who would harbor such people” the deterrent element of Alliance strategy was strengthened. The North Atlantic Council should decide actions on a case-by-case basis. Where NATO as a whole was not engaged, allies willing to take action should be able to make use of NATO assets, procedures and practices. The declaration stressed high priority goals essential to the full range of Alliance missions including the defense against terrorism. This new initiative was to be based on firm national commitments with specific target dates. National commitments should be made transparent for parliamentary monitoring and oversight. Priority should be given to projects maximizing multi-nationality, and which had the potential to become common NATO assets. NATO and European Union capabilities initiatives needed to be mutually reinforced and thoroughly harmonized through permanent co-ordination mechanisms and procedures in a spirit of openness. NATO should redouble its efforts to reduce the fragmentation of defense procurement efforts through the pooling of military capabilities, co-operative acquisition of equipment and common funding. It should reduce to a minimum the obstacles for the sharing of technology. The alliance had to be able to act wherever NATO' s interests were threatened, creating coalitions under NATO' s own mandate, as well as contributing to mission-based coalitions, concerning both, old and new threats. NATO General Secretary, Lord Robertson referred to the experience NATO had with post-conflict stabilization, as in Kosovo and Macedonia. On October 8, 2002 Robertson declared, an enormous number of security issues on the Euro-Atlantic agenda required the greatest possible communication and coordination among Europeans and North Americans. The November 2002 Prague Summit would be a transforming event for the Alliance. It covered a wide range from terrorism, NATO' s military command arrangements and headquarters structure, to a further development of Partnership. The most visible issues referred to enlargement and improvements to NATO' s military capabilities. The question of capabilities concerned the member countries of NATO and of the European Union (EU). Because each nation had only one set of forces, it was necessary to make the best use possible of the scarce resources, avoiding duplication and overlaps. The message was very clear: the European Capabilities Action Plan and NATO' s Prague Capabilities Commitment needed to be coherent. Work in full transparency on capabilities issues was imperative, if EUNATO impasse was to be avoided or ended.
Topic:
Terrorism and War
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Europe, Kosovo, Germany, United Nations, and Macedonia

363. Iraq Reconstruction Update #5: Retaking Fallujah

Author:
Michael Donovan
Publication Date:
12-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
The insurgency in Iraq has grown in size and effectiveness in the months since a U.S.-led coalition invaded the country. By the summer of 2004, Pentagon officials were revising their initial estimates of the size of the insurgency by a factor of four. Baghdad and Mosul remained open cities to insurgents, and coalition casualty figures were rising steadily. Even as coalition authorities and the Iraqi interim government began to consider preparations for elections to be held in 2005, 20-30 towns in northeastern Iraq remained outside of coalition control. In an effort to pacify these predominantly Sunni areas, coalition officials devised a plan to retake key towns, and, it was hoped, strike at the heart of the insurgency. As a centerpiece to this plan, on Nov. 8, 2004, U.S. Marine and Army units, complemented by some Iraqi troops, embarked on Operation Phantom Fury, the retaking of the town of Fallujah.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Human Rights, and War
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, and Arab Countries

364. Are Events in Iraq after the Occupation an Ordinary Security Problem?

Author:
Nihat Ali Özcan
Publication Date:
03-2004
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Abstract:
The US carried out the Iraqi occupation quickly, easily and with few casualties. It put an end to the security bureaucracy in the name of building new Iraq after the war. After a short while it faced unexpected resistance in the regions where Sunnite Arabs live. Insurgents have proved by their choice of targets and use of methods that they have a long-term and systematical resistance strategy. The insurgents could organize quickly because of effective tribal order, power of old security bureaucracy which kept its integrity after the war and refusal of foreign occupation. Insurgents want to control the public in order to get rid of weakness. Therefore, the keypoint of contention is who will control the public. While insurgents commonly use "terror" and "violence", occupiers try on the one hand to make insurgents ineffective, on the other, to win the "heart and brain" of the public. Security questions may spread to whole country in Iraq where there are ethnic and religious struggles. Iraqi Shiites may be involved in the conflict. Kurdish claims on Kirkuk may bring an ethnic conflict to the agenda. If the US administration can't provide stability in Iraq as soon as possible, Iraq may drift into a civil war.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Conflict Prevention, Terrorism, and War
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Arabia, and Kirkuk

365. Iraq: The Wrong War

Author:
Charles V. Peña
Publication Date:
12-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
President Bush asserts that U.S. military action against Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was in material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. But even if Iraq was in violation of a UN resolution, the U.S. military does not exist to enforce UN mandates. It exists to defend the United States: its territorial integrity and national sovereignty, the population, and the liberties that underlie the American way of life. So whether Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1441 is irrelevant. The real question is whether Iraq represented a direct and imminent threat to the United States that could not otherwise be deterred. If that was the case, then preemptive self-defense, like Israel's military action against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in the 1967 Six Day War, would have been warranted. And if Iraq was not a threat, especially in terms of aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, then the United States fought a needless war against a phantom menace.
Topic:
War
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Middle East, United Nations, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan

366. Mini-Nukes and Preemptive Policy: A Dangerous Combination

Author:
Charles V. Peña
Publication Date:
11-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Currently, the United States relies on conventional bunker-busting bombs—such as the GBU-28, which was used in both Afghanistan and Iraq—to destroy hardened, underground targets. Legislation is pending in Congress that would provide funding for research—but not engineering or development—for low-yield, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons for targets that cannot be destroyed by conventional bunker busters.
Topic:
Terrorism, War, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, and Iraq

367. Bush's National Security Strategy Is a Misnomer

Author:
Charles V. Peña
Publication Date:
10-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
The Constitution of the United States of America makes clear that one of the paramount responsibilities of the federal government is to "provide for the common defense." In the past, the primary threats to the United States and U.S. interests were hostile nation-states. Today, the real threat to America is terrorist groups, specifically the al Qaeda terrorist network. Therefore, al Qaeda, not rogue states, should be the primary focus of U.S. national security strategy.
Topic:
Terrorism and War
Political Geography:
United States and America

368. Casualties of War: Transatlantic Relations and the Future of NATO in the Wake of the Second Gulf War

Author:
Christopher Layne
Publication Date:
08-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
The Iraq War represents a turning point in transatlantic relations. Euro-American ties have been ruptured, and never again will be the same. But the growing estrangement between the European powers and the United States is tied primarily to the nature of power in the international system and to America's dominant role in the world today.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, NATO, and War
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, and America

369. Special Operations Forces Posture Statement

Publication Date:
07-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Abstract:
Special operations are operations conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments to acheive military, diplomatic, informational, and/or economic objectives employing military capabilities for which there is no broad conventional force requirement. These operations often require covert, clandestine, or discreet capabilities. Special operations are applicable across the range of military operations. They can be conducted independently or in conjunction with operations of conventional forces or other government agencies and may include operations by, with, or through indigenous or surrogate forces.Special operations differ from conventional military actions in the following ways: Greater degree of physical and political risk Unique operational techniques, mode of employment, and independence from friendly support Detailed operational intelligence and indigenous assets.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Terrorism, and War
Political Geography:
United States

370. Between a Rock and a Hard Place: How the US-EU Battle over Article 98 Played Out in Croatia and Macedonia

Author:
Kristina Balalovska and Mieczyslaw P. Boduszynski
Publication Date:
09-2003
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Wilson Center
Abstract:
In the first half of 2003, postcommunist East European countries became pawns in two disputes between the European Union (EU) and the United States (US). The first, broadly covered by the Western media, was the clash over the US-led invasion of Iraq. The second was over the jurisdiction of the newly established International Criminal Court (ICC). Although the latter skirmish was less noticed in the wider world, it was in many ways the more significant of the two. In both cases, the small states of East and Central Europe were forced to choose between the conflicting demands of the EU and US. Unlike the battle over the Iraq war, EU member states were united on the point of not granting the US immunity in the ICC. Moreover, it was impossible to walk a tightrope between Europe and the US in the ICC case because it required decisive action, whereas on the question of whether or not to invade Iraqi, some postcommunist countries were able to lend tacit support to both sides. Finally, a lot more was at stake in the ICC issue, since both the US and the EU threatened defecting countries with concrete sanctions.
Topic:
Government, International Organization, Politics, War, and Sanctions
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Europe, and Macedonia