Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Strategy

1611. Waiting for Goldilocks: Getting Japan’s Foreign Policy Just Right

Author:
Richard J Samuels
Publication Date:
10-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Generations of American parents have read their children a story called "Goldilocks and the Three Bears." It is the story of a young girl who wanders into the bears’ home in the woods. Goldilocks sits on chairs that are too big and too small, before find- ing one that is “just right.” She rejects bowls of their porridge as being too hot and as too cold, until she finds one that is “just right.” Like most children’s stories, Goldilocks is metaphorical. Americans use it to describe the process of finding just the right balance between alternatives that are too extreme. This metaphor captures the challenges awaiting Abe Shinzo, Japan’s new prime minister very nicely—particularly in the areas of foreign and secu- rity policy. His predecessor, Koizumi Junichiro, had already been like Goldilocks in his extended effort to find just the right policy toward North Korea. In his 2002 visit to Pyongyang he explored engagement, only to adopt toward a harder, more confrontational line. If the first was too hot and the second too cold, Abe is left with the responsibility to find a policy toward the DPRK that is “just right.” North Korea’s nuclear weapons test in October 2006 and its July 2006 missile tests certainly do not make this any easier.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Nuclear Weapons, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Japan, China, Asia, South Korea, and North Korea

1612. 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

1613. 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

1614. 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

1615. Eastward Bound: The Strategy and Politics of Repositioning U.S. Military Bases in Europe

Author:
Todd W. Fields
Publication Date:
05-2004
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Public and International Affairs (JPIA)
Institution:
School of Public and International Affairs (SPIA), Princeton University
Abstract:
This article examines the strategic rationale and political implications of the U.S. Department of Defense’s proposal to reposition U.S. military bases in Europe. The Pentagon’s plans call for a withdrawal of U.S. bases and personnel from Germany and the creation of various smaller, more flexible bases in Central and Eastern Europe. While the removal of U.S. forces from Germany is appropriate given the absence of an imminent security threat to Europe, revamping the European basing structure in the midst of current trans-Atlantic tensions presents formidable political challenges. Given the impact that base realignment is likely to have on U.S. relations with Germany, Russia, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the United States must exercise a deft diplomatic touch—balancing the pursuit of its strategic interests with the preservation of its regional relationships and alliances.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Politics, Military Strategy, and Military Bases
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America