Search

Begin New Search Political Geography United States

6911. China: Making the Case for Realistic Engagement

Author:
Michael E. Marti
Publication Date:
09-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
Chinese aspirations to become a great power in the 21st century have numerous regional implications. Beijing claims to seek a peaceful international climate so as to concentrate on domestic development. Yet under the rubric of a New Security Concept (NSC), China also is pursuing a long-term strategy to alter radically regional power relationships that have contributed to prosperity and relative stability in East Asia over the past 50 years.
Topic:
Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States, China, Beijing, and East Asia

6912. Regional Conflicts with Strategic Consequences

Author:
M. Elaine Bunn, Richard D. Sokolsky, and David E. Mosher
Publication Date:
07-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The strategic environment facing the United States has changed radically in the past decade. The United States needs to reexamine traditional ways of planning for the use of military force in conflicts that threaten vital interests and that could escalate to the highest levels of violence. Several characteristics define the new environment: Changed relationships between the major powers. The bipolar world of the Cold War has yielded to U.S. preeminence in virtually every facet of power, while Russia has become a second-tier power. China now has the seventh largest economy in the world and is modernizing both its conventional and nuclear forces—though it is unlikely to replace the former Soviet Union as the second pole in a reconfigured bipolar world. The rise of regional powers, such as Iraq and Iran. These aspiring regional hegemons are unhappy with a status quo that is preserved by American military power. The end of bipolarity has brought this antagonism to the fore. During the Cold War, regional conflicts played out within the context of the broader ideological and strategic conflict between the two superpowers, which also tamped down pressures for escalation and proliferation for fear that conflict would spiral out of control. That all ended with the Cold War. The collapse of the Soviet empire made it impossible for Russia to continue supporting its allies abroad, who were forced to become responsible for their own security. The possibility that smaller rogue states might try to keep the United States out of a regional conflict. By credibly threatening that the fight could escalate and even involve homeland attacks on the United States or its partners, a regional pariah might hope to prevent the United States from committing forces to the conflict or hinder it from building coalitions with European and regional allies. Failing that, a regional adversary could seek to delay and disrupt U.S. deployments to the theater and hamper operations. Finally, the leadership of a rogue state may be able to preserve its regime even in defeat if it could strike the American homeland or American allies. In short, regional powers are developing the capability to conduct strategic warfare against the United States. The importance these countries place on asymmetric warfare probably has been encouraged by the American distaste for wartime casualties and worries about self-deterrence.
Topic:
Security and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, and China

6913. A Golden Opportunity: The Next Steps in U.S.-Indian Relations

Author:
John C. Holzman
Publication Date:
07-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The Bush administration promotes broader security relations with India as a priority yet maintains wide-ranging sanctions against this giant of the subcontinent to punish it for its 1998 nuclear tests. The administration inherited policies that restrict high technology and military exports to India, mandate that the United States vote against some development loans to India from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, and limit cooperation with the Indian military establishment. The administration is in the process of lifting restrictions on high-level military contacts and is consulting with New Delhi on its plans for missile defense, a concept that India has applauded.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Central Asia, India, and New Delhi

6914. A Military for the 21st Century: Lessons from the Recent Past

Author:
Anthony C. Zinni
Publication Date:
07-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, more than any other event, marked the collapse of the Soviet Union. I remember crossing through a vacant Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin. No one on either side knew quite what we could or could not do, since it all happened so fast. The confusion and stark contrast between East and West Berlin made it hard to believe that we had once feared this collapsed Warsaw Pact or seen it as a serious global competitor. The West always contended that communism was a fundamentally flawed system that would eventually fail. Despite that belief, we were caught by surprise by the sudden and total end of the Soviet empire and the system that governed half the world. At the time, our President proudly drew what appeared to be the logical conclusion from these events: that there was to be a new world order. Others talked of reaping a peace dividend, since defense spending surely could be reduced.
Topic:
Security and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States and Berlin

6915. Normalizing U.S.-Russian Relations

Author:
Eugene B. Rumer and Richard D. Sokolsky
Publication Date:
04-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
Ten years after the end of the Cold War, mutual hopes that a comprehensive partnership would replace containment as the major organizing theme in U.S.-Russian relations have not been realized. The record of the 1990s has left both Russia and the United States unsatisfied. Russia looks back at the decade with bitterness and a feeling of being marginalized and slighted by the world's sole remaining superpower. It is also disappointed by its experience with Western-style reforms and mistrustful of American intentions. The United States is equally disappointed with Russia's lack of focus, inability to engage effectively abroad, and failure to implement major reforms at home. A comprehensive partnership is out of the question. Renewed competition or active containment are also not credible as organizing principles. Russia's economic, military and political/ideological weakness makes it an unlikely target of either U.S. competition or containment. Not only is Russia no longer a superpower, but its status as a regional power is in doubt.
Topic:
Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
Russia and United States

6916. Revising the Two-Major Theater War Standard

Author:
Hans Binnendijk and Richard L. Kugler
Publication Date:
04-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
One of the toughest challenges facing the Department of Defense (DOD) is translating strategic policy into concrete guidelines for preparing U.S. military forces. A defense planning standard is a set of judgments and directives for performing this key function. Normally this standard has three associated roles: to determine the size of forces and their main missions; to establish program and budgetary priorities; and to inform the Congress and the public of the rationale behind the defense strategy and force posture. For example, the Kennedy administration standard was a two and one-half war strategy, and the Nixon administration had a one and one-half war strategy. To guide its planning, the Carter administration used the standard of multitheater war with the Soviet Union in Europe and the Persian Gulf. The Reagan administration applied an Illustrative Planning Scenario that contemplated global war with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact
Topic:
Security and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States and Europe

6917. Renovating U.S. Strategic Arms Control Policy

Author:
Richard D. Sokolsky
Publication Date:
02-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
There has been a tectonic shift in the strategic landscape since the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) negotiations concluded in the early 1990s. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact are defunct. America and Russia are no longer enemies and the nuclear arms race between the two countries is, for all intents and purposes, over. The threat of a surprise nuclear attack has all but vanished along with any plausible scenario between the two countries that could escalate to a nuclear war. The strategic warning time for reconstitution of a credible conventional military threat to Europe can now be measured in years. The likelihood that Russia could marshal the economic resources for clandestine production of new nuclear weapon systems on a militarily significant scale is extremely remote. The most serious security threats emanating from Russia today—poorly safeguarded nuclear warheads and materials and the potential proliferation of such material and expertise to states of concern—reflect profound weakness. Simply put, the proliferation risks attendant to a Russia in the throes of a long-term structural crisis are a far more serious security threat than SS–18 heavy missiles destroying U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in a preemptive first strike.
Topic:
Defense Policy and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, and Europe

6918. The U.S. Strategic Posture Review: Issues for the New Administration

Author:
M. Elaine Bunn and Richard D. Sokolsky
Publication Date:
02-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
Before the next administration decides on a strategic force posture, national missile defense (NMD) architecture, and arms control objectives for both offensive and defensive forces, it needs to grapple with questions of strategy and doctrine. Any consideration of alternative defense strategies and their implications for nuclear forces and missile defenses should start with a basic set of questions: For what purposes will we need nuclear weapons and missile defenses in the future and under what conditions would these missions be carried out? What countries will pose strategic threats to vital U.S. national interests over the next 10–20 years? What hostile actions are we trying to deter, and what are the proper character, size, and mix of nuclear weapons and defenses in deterring these threats?
Topic:
Security and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
United States

6919. The Strategic Implications of a Nuclear-Armed Iran

Author:
Judith S. Yaphe and Kori N. Schake
Publication Date:
05-2001
Content Type:
Working Paper
Abstract:
Scholars and other spcialists on Iran have argued about that country's political intentions and strategic amibitions since the overthrow of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979. In the 1980s Iran's efforts to export its revolution and support international terrorism raised the question of whether a moderate Islamic republic that was able to deal with the West could ever exist. The death of the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989 and the succession of Ali Hashimi-Rafsanjani as president raised new issues for the 1990s. As the European and American oil and investment communities considered the race to open Iran commercially, scholars and diplomats debated Iranian efforts to recover from nearly a decade of war and revolution. They compared the merits of the European approach of initiating critical dialogue with the U.S. policy of containing and isolating Iran. Neither approach seemed to have much impact, both conceded, and Iranians continued to sort out their domestic political agenda and to decide how best to protect their strategic and national interests. The U.S. Government, for example, tried to estimate how much time and money Iran would need to modernize its military and to acquire new weapons systems despite projected low oil prices and the country's need to rebuild its damaged and neglected civilian and industrial infrastructure.1 The assumption underlying the U.S. projections was that Iran would be pursuing weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear technology and longrange missile systems.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, International Law, Nuclear Weapons, and Religion
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Iran, and Middle East

6920. Walk Softly and Look Ahead in Nuclear South Asia

Author:
Zia Mian
Publication Date:
10-2001
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Foreign Policy In Focus
Abstract:
Before September 11, South Asia's problems loomed large. The region, with over a billion people, a history of war, rising religious militancy, newly tested nuclear weapons, and a gettough mood, was on the brink of instability. Adding to South Asia's long list of troubles is the U.S. war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Hasty U.S. actions could deepen the problems facing South Asia. Over the long term, the U.S. has the opportunity to foster regional stability—but only if it pursues a different set of policies in the region.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and War
Political Geography:
United States, South Asia, and Taliban