Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Political Geography United States of America

1. Factsheet: Pete Hegseth

Author:
Bridge Initiative Team
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Bridge Initiative, Georgetown University
Abstract:
Pete Hegseth is a former Fox News political commentator, author, and former Army National Guard officer who served in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, and Afghanistan. He has tattoos that are associated with white nationalism and has a history of making Islamophobic statements. Hegseth has also been accused of sexual assault and has had several incidences of alleged sexist behavior. In 2025, Hegseth was confirmed as the next Secretary of Defense in the Trump administration.
Topic:
Islamophobia, Far Right, Donald Trump, Military, Pete Hegseth, and White Nationalism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. NATO-Europe-US Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific: Challenging Times Ahead

Author:
Gabriele Abbondanza
Publication Date:
03-2025
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Istituto Affari Internazionali
Abstract:
As the Indo-Pacific gradually becomes the world’s geopolitical and geoeconomic epicentre, states and regional organisations are progressively pivoting to it. Due to a combination of drivers – chiefly US pressure, economic opportunities, strategic interests and politico-normative priorities – European and Indo-Pacific actors have increased cooperation with Washington and NATO in the region. However, the second Trump administration looks considerably less aligned with the conventional pillars of US foreign policy. In light of the unfolding fracture between the US and its European allies over Ukraine, what lies ahead for NATO-Europe-US cooperation in the Indo-Pacific?
Topic:
NATO, International Cooperation, Geopolitics, Transatlantic Relations, and Military
Political Geography:
Europe, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

3. Thompson’s Rifle Battalion: The Original Unit of the Army of the United Colonies (Now the United States Regular Army)

Author:
John A. Bonin
Publication Date:
04-2025
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College
Abstract:
Although 1775 is indisputably the birth year of the US Army, two events occurred on June 14 of that year to which the Army can credit its birthday. One is the adoption by the Continental Congress of the collective militia forces from several colonies outside Boston to form a Continental Army, of which Congress appointed George Washington the commander in chief on June 15, 1775. In addition, the US Regular Army officially dates its beginning to June 14, 1775, when the Second Continental Congress directed 10 companies of expert riflemen to be raised immediately in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia. William Thompson’s commission as the colonel of the Pennsylvania Rifle Battalion was dated June 25, 1775, and made him the first colonel of what would eventually become, through George Washington’s Continental Army, the US Regular Army. But William Thompson has not found a prominent place in the American pantheon of revolutionary heroes for a variety of reasons. In addition, Thompson’s Pennsylvania Rifle Battalion later became the 1st Continental Regiment and ended the American Revolution as the 1st Pennsylvania Regiment, but its lineage has not continued in the modern US Army.
Topic:
History, Militias, Military, American Revolution, George Washington, and William Thompson
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

4. The Origins of the Second US Civil War

Author:
Mark Southern
Publication Date:
02-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
Institution:
Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies
Abstract:
The paper, “The Origins of the Second U.S. Civil War”, provides a hypothetical assessment of what might follow a disputed 2024 American election, and outlines three factors that would facilitate a fall into civil violence in such a scenario. Donald Trump has expediated a deterioration of the American political environment, and has targeted a specific subset of American citizenry. This subset has a rich militaristic tradition, and this paper argues that they might be instrumental in the devolution of future US politics. The power of the American military establishment has greatly increased post-WWII, and this paper also argues that the increased institutional pull held by the armed forces might similarly contribute to the outbreak of civil violence.
Topic:
Civil War, Military, Risk Assessment, and Civil Violence
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

5. US Military Action in the Middle East

Author:
Joseph Votel and Gerald Feierstein
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Middle East Institute (MEI)
Abstract:
The Middle East Institute (MEI) hosted an on-the-record briefing to discuss US military action against the Houthis and other militant groups throughout the region.
Topic:
Non State Actors, Houthis, Shipping, and Military
Political Geography:
Middle East, North America, and United States of America

6. Spotlight on US Syria policy

Author:
Charles Lister and Alistair Taylor
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Video
Institution:
Middle East Institute (MEI)
Abstract:
On this week's episode, Director of MEI's Syria and Countering Terrorism & Extremism Programs Charles Lister and MEI Editor-In-Chief Alistair Taylor talk about US policy toward Syria. The deadly Jan. 28 drone attack on a US military outpost in northeastern Jordan, near the borders with Syria and Iraq, has drawn renewed attention to the US military presence in the area. This comes against a backdrop of regional conflict and escalation.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Syrian War, Escalation, and Military
Political Geography:
Middle East, Syria, North America, and United States of America

7. A Return to US Casualty Aversion: The 9/11 Wars as Aberrations

Author:
John Mueller
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Impelled by an overwhelming desire to hunt down those who were responsible for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the United States launched military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, where it toppled regimes that had little or nothing to do with 9/11. There has been a tendency to see these exercises as misguided elements of a coherent plan to establish a liberal world order or to apply liberal hegemony. However, the warring of the post–9/11 period has been a glaring, extended, and highly consequential aberration. During the quarter century before that, the United States pursued a foreign policy that was far more casualty averse. Over the past decade, the country has moved back to—and appears poised to expand on—that tradition after its exhausting 9/11–induced military ventures that ran such high costs for so few benefits. Moreover, public opinion in the United States is not messianic or in constant search of hegemony or of monsters abroad to destroy. As part of its move back to a more limited military approach, the United States developed—or further developed—a strategy called “by, with, and through” that was particularly evident in its successful military campaign from 2014 to 2019 against the Islamic State. In this, the United States worked with local forces by providing advice, supplies, and intelligence, and by carrying out air strikes while the locals were expected to take almost all of the casualties. Although this approach is hardly new, it seems to have a future and is currently being applied in the war in Ukraine. It might also be applied to deal with a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Armed Forces, 9/11, War on Terror, Casualties, and Military
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

8. Right-Sizing the Russian Threat to Europe

Author:
George Beebe, Mark Episkopos, and Anatol Lieven
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Western leaders, including U.S. President Joe Biden, have frequently framed the invasion of Ukraine as the first step in a Russian plan of broader European conquest. However, a close examination of Russian intent and military capabilities shows this view is dangerously mistaken. Russia likely has neither the capability nor the intent to launch a war of aggression against NATO members — but the ongoing brinkmanship between Russia and the West still poses serious risks of military escalation that can only be defused by supplementing military deterrence with a diplomatic effort to address tensions. An analysis of Russian security thinking demonstrates that Putin’s stated views align with long-standing Russian fears about Western encroachment, given Russia’s lack of natural barriers to invasion. As Putin has come to view NATO as increasingly hostile to Russia, aggressive Russian action in defense of its claimed “sphere of influence” has become a factor in European security. However, contrary to many Western analyses, this does not mean that Russia views future wars of aggression against NATO member states as in its security interest. This does not imply naivete about the danger of Russian aggression, as reflected most recently in its illegal invasion of Ukraine. But it highlights the fundamental differences between Russia’s perceptions of Ukraine, which it has long regarded as both critical to its national security and integral to its history and culture, and its views of NATO countries, where the cost-benefit balance of aggression for Russia would be very different. Understanding Russian incentives also requires assessing Russia’s actual military capabilities compared to NATO. As frequently reiterated by NATO leadership, such an assessment shows that Russia is at a decisive conventional military disadvantage against the NATO alliance. While Russia would do damage in a conventional war with NATO, it would almost certainly suffer a devastating defeat in such a conflict absent nuclear escalation. NATO has a greater than three-to-one advantage over Russia in active-duty ground forces. NATO also has even greater advantages in the air and at sea. The alliance has a ten-to-one lead in military aircraft and a large qualitative edge as well, raising the probability of total air superiority. At sea, NATO would likely have the capacity to impose a naval blockade on Russian shipping, whose costs would dwarf current economic sanctions. While Russia has clear military superiority over individual NATO states, especially in the Baltics, it is extremely unlikely it could exercise this advantage without triggering a broader war with the entire NATO alliance. However, NATO’s powerful military deterrent alone cannot create stability in Europe. Paradoxically, an excessive reliance on military deterrence is likely to increase instability by inducing Russia to rely increasingly on its nuclear force as its primary basis for deterrence. Unlike conventional forces, Russia and NATO possess roughly the same amount of nuclear weapons. Washington must work to defuse this increasingly unstable dynamic by restoring diplomatic lines of communication between Russia and the West.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, NATO, National Security, Bilateral Relations, Military, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe, and United States of America

9. Implications of a Security Pact with Saudi Arabia

Author:
Paul R. Pillar
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
The Biden administration is seeking a deal in which Saudi Arabia would extend full diplomatic recognition to Israel in exchange for the United States providing Saudi Arabia a security guarantee, assistance in developing a nuclear program, and more unrestricted arms sales. Such an arrangement would further enmesh the United States in Middle Eastern disputes and intensify regional divisions. It would work against a favorable pattern of regional states working out their differences when the United States leaves them on their own — illustrated by the Chinese-brokered détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Besides being an authoritarian state lacking shared values with the United States, Saudi Arabia under Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) has aggressively pursued regional dominance, most notably with its highly destructive war in Yemen. A U.S. security guarantee could motivate MBS to engage in even riskier behavior and draw the United States into conflicts in which it has no stake, such as the sectarian dispute that had led Saudi Arabia to break relations with Iran. An expanded Saudi nuclear program would have a military as well as an energy dimension, with MBS having openly expressed interest in nuclear weapons. Granting the Saudi demand for help in enriching uranium would be a blow to the global nonproliferation regime as well as a reversal of longstanding U.S. policy. A race in nuclear capabilities between Iran and Saudi Arabia may result. Meeting MBS’ demands would not curb Saudi relations with China, which are rooted in strong economic and other interests. The United States could compete more effectively with China in the region not by taking on additional security commitments but instead by emulating the Chinese in engaging all regional states in the interest of reducing tensions. Normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia would not be a peace agreement, given the already extensive security cooperation between them. Even the gift of normalization with Riyadh would be unlikely to soften Israel’s hard-line positions regarding the war in Gaza and the larger Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and instead would only reduce further Israeli motivation to resolve that conflict.
Topic:
Diplomacy, National Security, Conflict, Normalization, Joe Biden, and Military
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America

10. Bending the Guardrails: U.S. War Powers after 7 October

Author:
International Crisis Group
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Crisis Group
Abstract:
Amid the Gaza war, the Biden administration has resorted to military force without asking Congress, further corroding the U.S. constitution’s checks and balances in this domain. Job one is a ceasefire but war powers reform is a vital task for the future.
Topic:
Reform, Constitution, Military, 2023 Gaza War, and War Powers
Political Geography:
Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Gaza, and United States of America