Search

Today the U.S. military is more nimble, mobile, and focused on rapid responses against smaller powers than ever before. One could argue that the Gulf War and the postwar standoff with Saddam Hussein hastened needed military transformation and strategic reassessments in the post-Cold War era. But the preoccupation with Iraq also mired the United States in the Middle East and led to a bloody occupation. What will American strategy look like after U.S. troops leave Iraq? Iraq and the Evolution of American Strategy examines the ways in which the Gulf War, the WMD standoff, the Iraq War, and the ongoing occupation have driven broader changes in U.S. national security policy and military strategy. Steven Metz answers three overarching questions: 1. How did the conflict with Iraq drive and shape broader changes in national security and military strategy? 2. Did policymakers and military leaders interpret the conflict correctly and make the most effective responses? 3. What does this process tell us about the process of change in America's national security and military strategy and in the evolution of its strategic culture? Metz concludes that the United States has a long-standing, continuing problem "developing sound assumptions when the opponent operates within a different psychological and cultural framework." He sees a pattern of misjudgments about Saddam and Iraq based on Western cultural and historical bias and a pervasive faith in the superiority of America's worldview and institutions. This myopia contributed to America being caught off guard by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, then underestimating his longevity, and finally miscalculating the likelihood of a stable and democratic Iraq after he was toppled. With lessons for all readers concerned about America's role in the world, Dr. Metz's important new work will especially appeal to scholars and students of strategy and international security studies, as well as to military professionals and DOD civilians. With a foreword by Colin S. Gray.

In war, there are always differences between the opponents. At times these are insignificant, passing disparities with no bearing on the outcome. At other times, the differences between opponents are important, placing one in a position of advantage, the other at a disadvantage. This is a very simple observation, but from it flows one of the pressing issues faced by the United States today: strategic asymmetry. Strategic asymmetry is the use of some sort of difference to gain an advantage over an adversary. It is an idea as old as warfare itself, appearing under a number of guises. Among strategic theorists, Sun Tzu placed great stock in psychological and informational asymmetry, writing that: All warfare is based on deception. When confronted with an enemy one should offer the enemy a bait to lure him; feign disorder and strike him. When he concentrates, prepare against him; where he is strong. avoid him.

Since 1995, peace operations in the Balkans have been an important part of the Army's contribution to U.S. national security. When these operations began, the Army institutionally focused on conventional warfighting. Since then, it has made significant changes to become more effective at peace operations, but this evolution continues. The goals that led the United States into the Balkans have not yet been fully realized. To meet them requires both sustained involvement in the region and continued refinement of the Army's peace operations capabilities. In this report, Dr. Steven Metz examines U.S. strategy in the Balkans and the Army's role in it. He recommends continued U.S. involvement, consideration of a long-term American military presence in the region, and some significant changes in the role of the Army. From a broader perspective, Dr. Metz argues that, if U.S. political leaders decide that involvement in protracted peace operations will be an enduring part of American strategy...

Within the U.S. Army, this is a time of both excitement and challenge. As immense change takes place in the global security environment, American land power must be adapted to assure it can continue to protect and promote national interests into the 21st century. This requires the development and integration of a range of new technologies, concepts, and organizations. Among these, nonlethality using armed force in a way that minimizes casualties shows promise for specialized applications. Nonlethal technology, concepts and doctrine may provide the Army a way to retain its political utility and military effectiveness in a security environment characterized by ambiguity and the glare of world public opinion. To explore this, the Army is undertaking programs and initiatives which may make it the driving force in nonlethality. This study by Steven Metz and Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., is a contribution to this effort. In it, they place nonlethality within its larger strategic context and explain how it is related to the revolution in military affairs. They then assess the arguments for and against the integration of nonlethality into American doctrine and procedures. Finally, they offer operational concepts which could serve as the basis for doctrine and for tactics, techniques, and procedures.

The U.S. military and national security community lost interest in insurgency after the end of the Cold War. Other defense issues such as multinational peacekeeping and transformation seemed more pressing and thus attracted the most attention. But with the onset of the Global War on Terror in 2001 and the ensuing involvement of the U.S. military in counterinsurgency support in Iraq and Afghanistan, insurgency experienced renewed concern in both the defense and intelligence communities. In this monograph, Dr. Steven Metz, who has been writing on insurgency and counterinsurgency for more than 2 decades, argues that this relearning process, while exceptionally important, emphasized the wrong thing, focusing on Cold War era nationalistic insurgencies rather than the complex conflicts which characterized the post-Cold War security environment. To be successful at counterinsurgency, he contends, the U.S. military and defense community must rethink insurgency.

This study approaches insurgency as a form of strategy, comprising of three waves: The first running from the 1920s -1990s and dominated by Maoist "people's war" and its variants, the second running from the 1990s to the present and characterized by reliance on terrorism, the merging of insurgency and crime and increased transnationalization. The third wave, currently in its early stages, is characterized by increased innovation by insurgents in response to technological, political, strategic and informational trends. Steven Metz identifies various aspects of the third wave of insurgency including increasing transnationalization, new extremist ideologies, network-and-node organizational forms, and crucially the integration of new technology. While the third wave is still in its early stages, this book proposes a range of alternative new insurgency strategies and predicts which will gain prominence in the future.

Dr. Steven Metz argues that the way the Department of Defense and U.S. military spend the time when counterinsurgency support is not an important part of American national security strategy determines how quickly and easily they react when policymakers commit the nation to such activity. If analysis and debate continues, at least at a low level, the military is better prepared for the reconstitution of capabilities. If it ignores global developments in insurgency and counterinsurgency, the reconstitution of capabilities would be more difficult.

The authors examine the trends in the strategic environment in their development of the Future War/Future Battlespace. One fact is clear. Traditional warfighting has changed in the post 9-11 era. The U.S. military must adapt or fail. There is no other recourse. The authors have superbly framed the strategic environment into four strategic battlespaces and have examined the ways future adversaries will operate within them to thwart U.S. strategic initiatives. In this context, these variables influence the path that Transformation must take.

The Strategic Studies Institute's XXI Annual Strategy Conference, held at Carlisle Barracks from April 6-8, 2010, addressed the topic of the meaning of war. While it did not seek to produce a definitive answer to questions about the nature and definition of war, it did highlight the crucial questions and their implications, including issues such as whether the cause of war is shifting, whether all forms of organized, politically focused violence constitute war, and the distinction between passive and active war. In the report which follows, Steven Metz and Philip Cuccia of SSI have summarized the presentations and debates at the conference and placed them in their wider intellectual and strategic context,