Search

Until Russia and the United States experience a change on government in 2008, the prospects for additional strategic arms control agreements, limits on destabilizing military operations, and joint ballistic missile defense programs appear unlikely. Yet, near-term opportunities for collaboration in the areas of cooperative threat reduction, third-party proliferation, and bilateral military engagement do exist.

"The U.S. defense export system needs further major reforms to reduce inefficiencies and weaknesses. Although the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) do help prevent potential foreign adversaries from using U.S. arms against the United States and its allies, the Regulations, as enforced, can weaken U.S. national security in other important ways. For example, by excessively impeding defense exports, the ITAR makes it more difficult for U.S. firms to sustain core U.S. defense technological and industrial advantages, decreases U.S. military interoperability with allies that purchase ITAR-free weapons from other sources, and generates other undesirable effects for the U.S. Army and U.S. national security"--Publisher's web site.

Given the stakes involved in achieving a correct understanding of Russian and Chinese defense policies and military developments, the magnitude of Mary Fitzgerald's enlightening accomplishments in this regard becomes clear. However, the problems that we have outlined in this volume were not unfamiliar to students of the Soviet Union. Indeed, they are enduring strategic issues for Russian policymakers as well as those who analyze or contribute to foreign policies toward the Russian military, despite the magnitude of the tremendous changes that have occurred since 1989 when the Soviet empire began to collapse. Even more importantly, Mary and her colleagues recognized that the issues outlined here are not just tasks relevant for the general study of Russia, but by addressing these strategic issues, and their underlying implications, policymakers will engage in the essential tasks necessary for the creation of an enduring structure of peace.

Given the stakes involved in achieving a correct understanding of Russian and Chinese defense policies and military developments, the magnitude of Mary Fitzgerald's enlightening accomplishments in this regard becomes clear. However, the problems that we have outlined in this volume were not unfamiliar to students of the Soviet Union. Indeed, they are enduring strategic issues for Russian policymakers as well as those who analyze or contribute to foreign policies toward the Russian military, despite the magnitude of the tremendous changes that have occurred since 1989 when the Soviet empire began to collapse. Even more importantly, Mary and her colleagues recognized that the issues outlined here are not just tasks relevant for the general study of Russia, but by addressing these strategic issues, and their underlying implications, policymakers will engage in the essential tasks necessary for the creation of an enduring structure of peace. Mary Fitzgerald made many contributions to the national security field over the course of the years through her close reading of the writings of Soviet and Russian military officers. Particularly useful was her focus on those of Soviet military theorists who put forward forecasts of future warfare and the impact of technology on warfare. These Russian reviews deserved respect and study; Mary's work made this possible. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it became easier to meet with and talk with a number of these Soviet officers so as to explore more fully their thinking and the continuing development of their ideas about future warfare, and the likely direction of the military revolution they had begun writing about in the late 1970s. Organizing meetings with them was greatly aided by Mary because of the good relations she had developed with several of these officers, who liked her as a person and were flattered that she had been so careful a reader of their writings. Strategic Studies Institute.

Throughout the world, military reserves are changing. National governments are transforming the relationships between their active and reserve components; the allocation of roles and responsibilities among reserve forces; and the way they train, equip, and employ reservists. One central precept is driving these changes: Nations no longer consider their reservists as strategic assets suitable primarily for mobilization during major wars. Whereas previously they managed reservists as supplementary forces for use mainly during national emergencies, major governments now increasingly treat reservists as complementary and integral components of their "total" military forces. This increased reliance on reserve components presents national defense planners with many challenges. Recruiting and retaining reservists has become more difficult as many individuals have concluded they cannot meet the additional demands of reserve service. Reservists are increasingly deployed on foreign missions at a time when expectations regarding their contributions to the management of terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other domestic emergencies are growing. Defense planners must also continue to refine the optimal distribution of skills and assets between regular and reserve forces. Finally, national governments need to find the resources to sustain the increased use of reservists without bankrupting their defense budgets or undermining essential employer support for the overall concept of part-time soldiers with full-time civilian jobs. Governments have adopted innovative responses to the complications associated with their growing use of reservists. To ease the pressures resulting from the increased convergence of reserve and active-duty deployment schedules, defense policymakers have tried to make rotation cycles more predictable and compatible with reservist lifestyles. In addition, the major military powers have widely adopted "total force" policies that treat their active and reserve components as integrated if not totally interchangeable elements. They have done so sometimes explicitly, sometimes just in practice, but always with major implications for a wide range of defense policies. National militaries are altering the relationship between their reserve and active-duty forces as they restructure both. Government policies increasingly treat mobilized reservists and regular forces similarly-harmonizing their organizational structures, compensation packages, and rules and regulations-as they link the two components more tightly. Nevertheless, many reservists still complain about their perceived second-class status regarding training opportunities, the quantity and quality of their equipment, and their treatment by field commanders when deployed on active duty. The convergence in the roles and missions of countries' reserve and active components invariably raises questions over the appropriate distribution of skills between the two. Since part-time soldiers normally find it difficult to match the competencies of full-time professionals, governments have had to decide where the comparative advantages of reservists lie. Although reservists continue to perform traditional defense support functions, such as rear area security and logistics, they have recently assumed new responsibilities. These novel tasks often reflect the special skills and assets reservists can bring from their civilian lives to their military roles. In many high technology fields, for instance, the human resource capabilities present in a country's civilian economy exceed those readily available in the defense sector. One problem with this approach, however, is that many people join the reserves to pursue an occupation different from that of their civilian jobs. For this reason, several governments have adopted a formal policy of not requiring reservists to perform the same functions when on military duty that they do during their civilian jobs, except in emergencies.

Chinese-Russian security relations directly concern many subjects of interest to the Strategic Studies Institute. These areas include regional conflicts, nonproliferation issues, and military force balances. Given the importance of these two countries in international affairs, however, almost any foreign policy action of their governments affects some American national interest. For almost 2 decades, China and Russia have been strengthening their security ties. Nonetheless, as this monograph makes clear, the relationship between Beijing and Moscow remains in flux. In some cases, they share overlapping interests. In other instances, they compete for power and wealth, particularly for oil and gas resources. Many factors will affect Sino-Russian ties- including developments within China and Russia as well as external events. As part of this mix, American policies will also have some impact on the future foreign behavior of both countries.