Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Strategy Political Geography United States of America

151. Indo- US Strategic Objectives in Afghanistan: Security Calculus of Pakistan

Author:
Muhammed Tayyab Zia
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
Washington and New Delhi have converged interests in Afghanistan. US aspires a greater Indian role in Afghanistan in the wake of its withdrawal from Afghanistan and India, in order to pose itself an international power, seeks in Afghanistan a deeper involvement. Although both of the states, India and the US, have devised a commonality of interests since 9/11, yet since the current US Administration bilateral ties have been intensified to the extent where Pakistan have severe implications. US President Trump‟s verdict of regionalization of Afghan issue has implied concerns for Islamabad. Pakistani authorities relate the terrorist activities in the country, particularly insurgency in Baluchistan with the role of various powers‟ role in Afghanistan. Strategic and security related objectives and concerns would be discussed in this article.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, Bilateral Relations, and Peace
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Middle East, India, Asia, North America, and United States of America

152. War on Terror: Repercussions for Pakistan

Author:
Muhammad Shamshad, Amjad Abbas Khan, and Muhammad Hassan
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
South Asian Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
The US-Taliban peace agreement has rekindled hopes for peace in Afghanistan. After fighting for almost two decades, the US has agreed to enter into a peace deal with its one time worst enemy i.e. Taliban. Pakistan has been a facilitator in bringing a peace deal to Afghanistan. Its role has been well recognised by both US and Taliban. Pakistan has long been associated with this issue; first as US partner in the war against Taliban and now as a facilitator to bring US and Taliban to a peace deal. It seems quite pertinent to re-evaluate Pakistan„s role in war against terrorism and its repercussions for Pakistan. The present research has explored the effects that Pakistan has faced after becoming the partner of war on terror initiated by the then American President George Walker Bush in 2001 soon after the incident of 9/11. It has explained how this participation of Pakistan has caused a colossal damage to the social, economic, religious and political domains of Pakistan and how the partnership has tarnished the image of Pakistan in the comity of nations. Additionally, impact of war on terror has been judged through examining the current status of internal and external security threats, soaring poverty, restrained development policies, increased hatred against the Americans and national disintegration. The methods of describing the facts and figures in the existing body of knowledge i.e published books, research articles, newspapers and published theses and then comparing and analysing them on the basis of personal opinion and other data, have been used to conclude the topic.
Topic:
Security, Terrorism, Military Strategy, Taliban, and War on Terror
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

153. Biden’s World? Views from the United States, China, Russia, and the European Union

Author:
Alexey Gromyko and Sven Biscop
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
EGMONT - The Royal Institute for International Relations
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic prevented the annual joint seminars that since a few years the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Egmont – Royal Institute for International Relations organise in Moscow and Brussels. But the coronavirus cannot interrupt academic exchange; a dialogue that is more than ever necessary in a world of increasing tensions between the great powers. We continue our collaboration through this joint publication, therefore, for which we have invited prominent scholars from Russia and the European Union as well as China and the United States to share their analysis of the impact of Joe Biden’s victory in the US presidential elections on international politics.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, European Union, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Asia, North America, and United States of America

154. Syria in the US and Israeli debate on Iran

Author:
Shira Efron
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
With presidential elections in the United States underway in November 2020[1], the only possible scenarios for Washington in the Middle East are either continuation and solidification, or a change in its Iran policy, each with different potential impacts on the geopolitical conflict between the United States, Israel, and allied Arab countries on one side and Iran and its regional Axis-of-Resistance on the other. Analysing current convergences and divergences between the United States and Israel on Syria and Iran is important to anticipate potential changes in both countries’ positions following the US election, as such changes may impact the effectiveness and even the prospect of the continuation of the United States’ so-called ‘Maximum Pressure’ campaign. The policies of the two countries on Syria and Iran became varyingly intertwined as Iran entrenched itself deeply in Syria. Nonetheless, it is important to note that Israel and the United States differ in their approaches to tackling Syria. This contribution attempts to assess the US campaign against Iran, the cost it is likely to have inflicted upon it in Syria, and the outlook of an agreement with Iran. Although we are considering US policy on Iran, the analysis here also includes the Israeli perspective. Private conversations with Israeli current and former officials have provided important insights into how Israeli officials see US policy in Syria and vis-à-vis Iran, and can add a unique contribution to the dialogue. In this analysis, we sought to address several issues. First, whether there are any incentives for Iran to concede to US demands or reach a meaningful bargain, and whether under a Biden or Trump administration a new Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) could be renegotiated to include Iranian expansion in the region. We also examined the form and incentives structure that could entice Iran to offer a constructive contribution to the stability of Syria and the region. In addition, we assessed to what extent the Maximum Pressure campaign affects Iran, and whether targeting Syria with sanctions would incentivise both the Syrian government and the Syrian locals (who are working with Iran as fighters) to break with Iran. Finally, assuming that Iran is in Syria to protect its own interests, we question whether more threats to Tehran would lead to reduced presence in Syria.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Governance, Elections, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, Israel, Syria, North America, and United States of America

155. Shaking the Foundation: the Trump Administration and NATO’s East

Author:
Metthew Bryza
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Warsaw East European Review (WEER)
Institution:
Centre for East European Studies, University of Warsaw
Abstract:
Ultimately though, my very last remarks are ultimately optimistic, because President Trump lacks geopolitical vision, lacks historical insight or, really even, frankly – I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but – curiosity about history. Everything is about the deal. One and one, the individuals, the people – that’s why he had nobody in a room which is what Putin wanted, besides Rex Tillerson and the interpreter when they met. And so, what’s inevitably going to happen is he will start up with a grand bargain, where something hap- pens in Ukraine mostly cut over the heads of the Ukrainians. But thank goodness with Am- bassador Volker there, I know he’s no fool and will fight against that, but probably though there will be an agreement which I know that the Trump administration, from my own contacts within, has been cooking up, hoping for, for a longtime, whereby President Putin gets what he needs. He gets an excuse to exit Donbass, because that’s a failed operation, the uprising that he expected never happened, Russian troops are dying, it’s an economic albatross around the neck of Russia. But he can’t just leave, he can’t just pull out Russian troops, because that would really hurt him domestically, politically. So, okay, he says: “We’ve reentered the geopolitical stage, we’re at the center of it with President Trump”. Putin will say “We’ll pull out of Donbass, we’re never leaving Crimea”, That will be the deal I think. Donbass – if the Ukrainian government offers autonomy – will have a sort of a frozen political conflict, troops gone, heavy weapons pulled back on the Russian side, Crimea still what it is – anschlussed by Russia. And then the other area where there will be coopera- tion is in Syria. And we’ve already seen in Southeastern Syria there is a modest cease-fire that seems to be holding – that’s great, may it work, however it also provides U.S. bless- ing for Russian troops to base deeper in the Middle East, and that has never happened before. But leave that aside, maybe it will bring peace. Eventually that cooperation in Syria will collapse. Russia has no history of successfully establishing peace and rebuilding economies and complex cultures. It used brutality in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, to build the Soviet Union, but it doesn’t have the finesse to rebuild something on the scale of Syria. And so, Trump is going to be disappointed with President Putin. President Putin will inevitably overplay Russia’s hand, and finally at that point my last remark – if the EU and NATO have maintained their cohesion, remain strong, maintain the geopolitical vision of President Duda and Secretary of State Szczerski, then we have a chance to take these positive developments and push away the lack of clarity, the dalliance with Putin and the security services on the part of team Trump, and finally wake up – just as Obama woke up, just as President Bush woke up and realized he that he hadn’t see Putin’s soul, and then maybe we can rebuild. So, the key to all this is that you all are doing exactly what you’ve said, Mr. Secretary of State – taking the strategic reins in your own hands, pursuing initia- tives like the Three Seas, changing the geopolitical facts on the ground so that when the U.S. does finally wake up – we know which way to move. Thank you very much!
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Leadership
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

156. China’s Private Military and Security Companies: “Chinese Muscle” and the Reasons for U.S. Engagement

Author:
Christopher Spearin
Publication Date:
06-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
On 7 February 2019, General Thomas Waldhauser, then-Commander of United States Africa Command, stated the following during a hearing of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee: “The Chinese bring the money and the Russians bring the muscle.” “Chinese money” is evident in the fact that since 2009, China has been Africa’s largest trading partner.
Topic:
Privatization, Military Strategy, Hegemony, Conflict, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

157. Rediscovering a Strategic Purpose for NATO

Author:
Peter Ricketts
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Watford is at first sight an unlikely place for a gathering of world leaders. This nondescript suburb to the north of London found itself briefly in the media spotlight one chilly afternoon in December 2019. Boris Johnson had taken time out from his election campaign just before polling day to host a meeting of NATO leaders. It was intended to be a signal of allied unity in the 70th anniversary year of the 1949 Washington Treaty.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Treaties and Agreements, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

158. No Competition Without Presence: Should the U.S. Leave Africa?

Author:
Katherine Zimmerman
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
American blood and treasure should be prioritized to secure U.S. national interests. The United States military is not the world’s police force, and where others can share the burden, the United States should add only its unique capabilities. But defending U.S. interests extends even into faraway lands, including Africa. While Africa may never be a top national security concern for the United States, a convergence of gains by state and nonstate actors alike there affect U.S. security and economic interests globally. Yet the Pentagon’s recent effort to rebalance its resources against great power competitors—especially China and Russia—after almost two decades of counterterrorism dominance places the commitment of U.S. military resources to Africa in question. Drawing down too far militarily in Africa risks losing influence on the continent to those very same state actors, erasing hard–fought counterterrorism gains, and compromising U.S. global interests.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Hegemony, Counter-terrorism, Military Intervention, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
Africa, North America, and United States of America

159. 2020 Country Brief: Saudi Arabia and its role in Yemen

Author:
Third Way
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been a close security and economic partner of the United States for most of the Kingdom’s history. But the United States cannot ignore Saudi Arabia’s gruesome acts and abuses, nor allow them to be swept under the rug. The two countries have critical differences on a number of key issues, including those related to terrorism, human rights, and regional security threats. Two particular actions taken by Saudi Arabia have caused Congress to revisit the US-Saudi relationship: Saudi-led military operations in Yemen that have killed thousands of innocent civilians and left millions on the brink of starvation; and The 2018 brutal murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi—a Saudi citizen and US resident—carried out by the Saudi government in Istanbul, Turkey. In the face of Saudi Arabia’s dangerous and destabilizing behavior, President Trump has doubled down on his support for the Kingdom and defied bipartisan congressional opposition to continue to sell arms to the Saudi government. Instead of permitting President Trump to allow autocrats and dictators to operate with impunity and commit acts of unimaginable horror, Congress must reassert its foreign policy decision-making power, impose targeted consequences on the Kingdom for its actions, and withdraw support for Saudi-led military operations in Yemen.
Topic:
Security, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Human Rights Violations
Political Geography:
Middle East, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, North America, United States of America, and Gulf Nations

160. 2020 Thematic Brief: Preventing and Countering Terrorism

Author:
Third Way
Publication Date:
09-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Third Way
Abstract:
The Trump Administration’s stated strategies to prevent and counter terrorism have largely continued the approach of the Obama Administration. However, this approach is at odds with the president’s own rhetoric and actions, which make us less safe in the long term. President Trump has verbally attacked and abandoned key allies and partners in the fight against terrorism, including the Kurds in Syria, while embracing counterproductive policies that will make it easier for terrorists to rebuild. At the same time, President Trump has largely ignored the far-right extremism that has spiked under his presidency. Even worse, he has retweeted statements that come from people associated with hate groups. Right-wing extremists, and in particular white supremacists, have caused more deaths than international terrorists in recent years.1They feel they have an ally in President Trump because he has largely refused to condemn them. During the recent protests for racial justice, he completely ignored the threat of right-wing extremists accused of killing Americans and plotting attacks against the military, while at the same time he was inflating other extremist threats.23And he blamed both sides in Charlottesville. To be clear, one side was neo-Nazis and other white supremacists. The United States needs a smart and tough approach to terrorism and extremism that includes: Prioritizing the threat of domestic extremism and dedicating resources to prevent and counter it, including by providing support to organizations working on these issues, cutting off financial flows, evaluating whether further designations of foreign right-wing organizations are warranted, and addressing extremism in the US military;4 Preventing the spread of all forms of violent extremism by addressing the root causes globally and reducing the effectiveness of recruitment efforts; Protecting the American homeland by preventing terrorist attacks and disrupting terrorist networks in the United States; and Eliminating terrorist safe havens abroad and building up the capacity of partner nations to fight terrorism on their own turf.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Terrorism, Military Strategy, and Counter-terrorism
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America