As the daily headlines attest, the Department of Defense is in the midst of a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Charged by Congress, the Department of Defense is examining a broad range of issues concerning U.S. military policy and strategy (inter alia, future national defense strategy, the force structure necessary to implement that strategy, the affects of technology on force structure, and the anticipated roles and missions of the Reserve Components in executing the defense strategy) that will have far-reaching consequences for the United States. Before these crucial issues are addressed, however, a more fundamental question needs to be explored: what does the United States want its military to do? In other words, what are the future roles of the U.S. military? Only after this issue has been answered can the Department of Defense turn to the other important issues posed by Congress. Dr. William T. Johnsen tackles this question. In brief, he concludes that the U.S. military will continue to perform its traditional roles: deterrence, reassurance, compellence, and support to the nation. The method and manner of carrying out those roles, however, will change; in some cases substantially. The implications of these adapted roles will be considerable. More importantly, Dr. Johnsen also examines the emerging role of preventive defense and its potentially profound consequences for the U.S. military. The debates carried out within and about the QDR will shape the security policy of the United States well into the 21st Century.
By virtue of its strategic location at the intersection of Europe and Asia, Turkey plays a pivotal role in the post-cold war system of states. It lies, one could say, at the epicenter of a series of conflicts, real and potential, in both continents. It also has enjoyed noticeable growth in both economic prosperity and democracy since 1980. And because Turkey has been, and remains, a faithful U.S. ally, Washington has called upon it to play a role in the Balkans, Near East, and former Soviet empire commensurate with its new-found political and economic development. "This report analyzes the implications of Turkey's policies and the reactions of Turkey's neighbors in three discrete chapters. The authors focus their conclusions and options for U.S. policymakers on the effect of Turkish policies in Europe, the Middle East, and the former Soviet republics The final chapter summarizes their conclusions with respect to the three regions that are so important in the search for peace and stability in these regions. "John W. MountcastleColonel, United States ArmyDirector, Strategic Studies Institute
The U.S. Army has moved along the path of preparing for the 21st century. This process began with the conceptual examinations and assessments carried out under the "Louisiana Maneuvers" and the Army's Battle Labs, and matured through the Force XXI process. The Army recently completed its first series of Advanced Warfighting Experiments that will shape the redesign and restructure of the future force, Army XXI, for the early years of the new millennium. While the broad outlines of Army XXI have been sketched out, many of the details remain to be filled in. Undoubtedly, these efforts will be influenced by the recent reports of the Quadrennial Defense Review (May 1997) and the National Defense Panel (December 1997). Indeed, debates over details of the force structure and the ultimate size of the Army are not likely to abate any time soon. To assist in the further conceptual development, Dr. William T. Johnsen places Army XXI in a broad strategic context. He briefly examines the anticipated international security environment and the roles that the U.S. Armed Forces and the Army can be expected to perform. He then assesses a wide range of general factors that will influence the capabilities needed to carry out the anticipated roles. Finally, he examines general and specific criteria that can be used to determine the appropriate size of Army XXI.
This “uncommonly astute study” examines the early development of the US-UK military alliance that would eventually lead to victory in WWII (Paul Miles, author of FDR’s Admiral). On December 12, 1937, Japanese aircraft sank the American gunboat Panay outside Nanjing, China. Although the Japanese apologized, President Roosevelt set Captain Royal Ingersoll to London to begin conversations with the British admiralty about Japanese aggression in the Far East. While few Americans remember the Panay Incident, it was the start of what would become the “Special Relationship” between the United States and Great Britain. In The Origins of the Grand Alliance, William T. Johnsen provides the first comprehensive analysis of Anglo-American military collaboration before the Second World War. He sets the stage by examining Anglo-French and Anglo-American coalition military planning from 1900 through World War I and the interwar years. Johnsen also considers the formulation of policy and grand strategy, operational planning, and the creation of the command structure and channels of communication. He addresses vitally important logistical and materiel issues, particularly the difficulties of war production. Drawn from extensive sources and private papers held in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States, Johnsen’s exhaustively researched study casts new light on the twentieth century’s most significant alliance.
The U.S. decision to join the Implementation Force (IFOR) for the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Hercegovina (familiarly known as the Dayton Accords) marked a crucial milestone toward achieving the U.S. national objective of a lasting political settlement to the conflict in Bosnia. Equally critical will be determining whether the United States will continue participating in IFOR beyond the currently established 12-month deadline. Decisions of great import rarely entail simple cause and effect judgments. Thinking through the likely second and third order consequences of contemplated actions often defines success or failure as much as dealing with the issue of the moment. Such is the case for U.S. policy in Bosnia. In examining what form U.S. involvement in IFOR beyond the current deadline will take, we should recall that, while events inside Bosnia influenced the introduction of U.S. ground troops, wider U.S. interests in the Balkans, in Europe, and throughout the world proved more pivotal in the decisionmaking calculus. Likewise, a decision on whether to withdraw from or to extend IFOR also must encompass a similarly broad geo-strategic context. To that end, Dr. William Johnsen examines in this monograph the potential for creating suitable conditions for a lasting political settlement in Bosnia by December 1996, identifies possible outcomes of a U.S. withdrawal from IFOR, and assesses potential consequences for U.S. national objectives and interests within the Balkans, and beyond. Dr. Johnsen's conclusions will not sit well with most in the United States and abroad who are weary of the Bosnian "problem" and would like to see it "wrapped up" by December.
This volume covers many topics, including number theory, Boolean functions, combinatorial geometry, and algorithms over finite fields. It contains many new, theoretical and applicable results, as well as surveys that were presented by the top specialists in these areas. New results include an answer to one of Serre's questions, posted in a letter to Top; cryptographic applications of the discrete logarithm problem related to elliptic curves and hyperelliptic curves; construction of function field towers; construction of new classes of Boolean cryptographic functions; and algorithmic applications of algebraic geometry.
As the daily headlines attest, the Department of Defense is in the midst of a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Charged by Congress, the Department of Defense is examining a broad range of issues concerning U.S. military policy and strategy (inter alia, future national defense strategy, the force structure necessary to implement that strategy, the affects of technology on force structure, and the anticipated roles and missions of the Reserve Components in executing the defense strategy) that will have far-reaching consequences for the United States. Before these crucial issues are addressed, however, a more fundamental question needs to be explored: what does the United States want its military to do? In other words, what are the future roles of the U.S. military? Only after this issue has been answered can the Department of Defense turn to the other important issues posed by Congress. Dr. William T. Johnsen tackles this question. In brief, he concludes that the U.S. military will continue to perform its traditional roles: deterrence, reassurance, compellence, and support to the nation. The method and manner of carrying out those roles, however, will change; in some cases substantially. The implications of these adapted roles will be considerable. More importantly, Dr. Johnsen also examines the emerging role of preventive defense and its potentially profound consequences for the U.S. military. The debates carried out within and about the QDR will shape the security policy of the United States well into the 21st Century.
Divisive debates over the future force structures of the U.S. Armed Forces have continued despite the Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions for the Armed Forces (May 1995) and the more recent reports of the Quadrennial Defense Review (May 1997) and the National Defense Panel (December 1997). Part of the reason for the bitter nature of these debates is due to parochial partisanship. Part is due to a lack of clear understanding of the individual components of military power or of their collective interrelationships. This latter conclusion may be particularly true for land power. Responsibility for this misunderstanding does not always fall at the feet of outside observers. No official definition or general articulation of land power currently exists. And, because land power is self-evident to most who wear Army or Marine Corps green, they see little need to explain land power to a broader audience. But, if national leaders are to have a fuller understanding of land power, its central role in the growing interdependence of military power, or the policy options that land power's versatility brings to security policy planning and execution, then such explanations are imperative. To help fill this conceptual gap, Dr. William T. Johnsen offers a definition of land power to meet the demands of the 21st century. While defining land power is his primary purpose, he also places land power within the overarching context of total military power. Additionally, he highlights the growing interdependence among the components of national power. In placing land power is such a context, Dr. Johnsen seeks to spark an enlarged debate about land power, the strategic and operational versatility it offers policymakers, and its interrelationships with air and sea power. To this end, the Strategic Studies Institute offers this contribution to the ongoing debate.
The U.S. Army has moved along the path of preparing for the 21st century. This process began with the conceptual examinations and assessments carried out under the "Louisiana Maneuvers" and the Army's Battle Labs, and matured through the Force XXI process. The Army recently completed its first series of Advanced Warfighting Experiments that will shape the redesign and restructure of the future force, Army XXI, for the early years of the new millennium. While the broad outlines of Army XXI have been sketched out, many of the details remain to be filled in. Undoubtedly, these efforts will be influenced by the recent reports of the Quadrennial Defense Review (May 1997) and the National Defense Panel (December 1997). Indeed, debates over details of the force structure and the ultimate size of the Army are not likely to abate any time soon. To assist in the further conceptual development, Dr. William T. Johnsen places Army XXI in a broad strategic context. He briefly examines the anticipated international security environment and the roles that the U.S. Armed Forces and the Army can be expected to perform. He then assesses a wide range of general factors that will influence the capabilities needed to carry out the anticipated roles. Finally, he examines general and specific criteria that can be used to determine the appropriate size of Army XXI. Dr. Johnsen's conclusions are likely to spur further debate on the force structures of Army XXI. These debates are essential if the U.S. Army is to be prepared to carry out its future roles. It is in this context that the Strategic Studies Institute offers this contribution to the dialogue.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.