Strategic Forums

Follow

• 

  Deploying Missile Defense: Major Operational Challenges

  M. Elaine Bunn

  This Strategic Forum policy brief analyzes the operational and policy challenges associated with the initial deployment of U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) capabilities in 2004–2005. Moving beyond debates over whether missile defense should be deployed, the article examines how such systems would actually be used in crisis and conflict. It identifies seven major operational challenges: delegation of weapons release authority; allocation of limited interceptors; defining the roles of the President and Secretary of Defense during intercept operations; integration of offensive strike options with defensive systems; command responsibilities within the Department of Defense; balancing testing requirements with operational readiness; and establishing confidence-building mechanisms, particularly notification procedures to Russia, to prevent miscalculation. The brief argues that as missile defense evolves through spiral development, operational doctrine, command arrangements, and strategic guidance must evolve in parallel. Effective integration of missile defense into broader deterrence and strategic planning will be essential to managing both technical limitations and geopolitical risks.

• 

  Shaping U.S. Policy on Africa: Pillars of a New Strategy

  Johnnie Carson

  In the four decades since most African states achieved independence, the continent has never been a foreign policy priority for the United States. During the early years of American engagement with Africa, Washington focused its attention on preventing communist countries from gaining major military bases or monopolistic concessions over any of the continent’s important strategic minerals. Although the United States provided large amounts of development assistance and food aid to a number of African states, most American interest and support was directed toward African countries and leaders who were regarded as Cold War allies. In those countries still struggling for independence, the United States usually supported African insurgents who were pro-Western and anticommunist in their orientation. In South Africa and Namibia, Washington generally professed great sympathy for eventual majority rule and independence but largely supported the status quo out of fear that liberation groups allied with the Soviet Union or China would win power in any political transition.

• 

  Japan’s Constitution and Defense Policy: Entering a New Era?

  Rust Deming

  This Strategic Forum policy brief examines the evolving debate in Japan over constitutional revision and defense policy reform in the post–Cold War security environment. Focusing on Article IX of the 1947 constitution, which renounces war and restricts military capabilities, the article analyzes pressures driving reconsideration of Japan’s defense posture, including generational change, North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs, China’s growing power, participation in international peacekeeping operations, ballistic missile defense cooperation with the United States, and the Iraq War. The study outlines competing political perspectives—“alliance nationalists,” “internationalists,” and “neo-nationalists”—and assesses their influence on the revision of Japan’s National Defense Program Outline (NDPO). It concludes that while Japan is unlikely to abandon the pacifist spirit of Article IX, amendments to legitimize the Self-Defense Forces and clarify the right of self-defense, including limited collective self-defense, are increasingly probable. The evolution of Japan’s defense policy is expected to strengthen the U.S.-Japan alliance while expanding Japan’s capacity for international security cooperation.

• 

  Eliminating Adversary WMD: Lessons for Future Conflicts

  Rebecca K.C. Hersman and Todd M. Koca

  The failure to find substantial evidence of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in Iraq has exposed serious weaknesses in the U.S. understanding of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat posed by its adversaries and in its ability to deal with these threats. A rancorous and highly politicized debate, primarily about the intelligence assessments of Iraqi WMD capabilities before Operation Iraqi Freedom, has dominated the national discussion of WMD in Iraq for months. Although Iraqi WMD capabilities remain elusive and, in- deed, weapons may never be found, elimination operations conducted there provide important lessons.

• 

  Apocalyptic Terrorism: The Case for Preventive Action

  Joseph McMillan

  This policy brief examines the growing threat posed by apocalyptic, religiously motivated terrorist movements, particularly al Qaeda, and argues that their ideology, intent, and capabilities require a reassessment of international norms governing the use of force. Unlike earlier terrorist groups constrained by political objectives, apocalyptic terrorists seek mass casualties and reject traditional limits on violence, making purely reactive or law-enforcement approaches inadequate. The brief contends that under certain circumstances states must retain the ability to take preventive action, including military operations on foreign territory, when governments are unwilling or unable to suppress terrorist threats within their borders. Drawing on principles of customary international law, sovereign responsibility, and the inherent right of self-defense under the UN Charter, the author makes the case that preventive action can be legally and morally justified. Building international consensus around this doctrine is essential to sustaining legitimacy in the global struggle against terrorism.

• 

  Securing Afghanistan: Entering a Make-or-Break Phase?

  Robert B. Oakley and T.X. Hammes

  This paper assesses Afghanistan’s security and political trajectory in early 2004, arguing that the country had entered a decisive “make-or-break” phase in post-Taliban stabilization. The authors analyze the persistence of warlordism, Pashtun resentment, Taliban-led insurgency, narcotics trafficking, and cross-border dynamics involving Pakistan, Iran, India, and Central Asia. They examine the evolving coalition response, including the expansion of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Operation Enduring Freedom’s shift toward population-centered counterinsurgency, development of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and police forces, Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) initiatives, and the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) model. The brief argues that sustained U.S. leadership, expanded international engagement, security sector reform, and accelerated reconstruction are essential to prevent renewed civil war and ensure long-term Afghan stability.

• 

  Collision Avoidance: U.S.-Russian Bilateral Relations and Former Soviet States

  Eugene B. Rumer

  This Strategic Forum policy brief analyzes the growing risk of tension between the United States and Russia as expanding U.S. political and military engagement in former Soviet states intersects with Moscow’s renewed determination to consolidate influence over its “near abroad.” After September 11, U.S. security involvement in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia intensified in support of counterterrorism objectives and the sovereignty of newly independent states. Simultaneously, a broad Russian political consensus has emerged favoring an exclusive sphere of influence along its periphery and resisting long-term U.S. and NATO presence. These converging trajectories place U.S. and Russian policies on a potential collision course. The brief argues that confrontation or formal spheres of influence would undermine regional stability and bilateral relations. Instead, sustained dialogue, transparency, and mutually understood “rules of the road” are essential to manage differences and prevent miscalculation while preserving the independence of former Soviet states.

• 

  Partnership for Peace: Charting a Course for a New Era

  Jeffrey Simon

  This Strategic Forum brief examines the future of NATO’s Partnership for Peace (PFP) following Alliance enlargement and shifting post-9/11 security priorities. With many former partners joining NATO, the program faces questions about its continued relevance. The brief argues that PFP remains essential for promoting defense reform, democratic civil-military relations, interoperability, and regional security cooperation among remaining partner states. It recommends restructuring the program to address distinct regional needs, strengthening subregional initiatives, enhancing counterterrorism cooperation, and improving resource allocation. A revitalized Partnership for Peace, better integrated with NATO’s strategic objectives, would support stability in Europe’s periphery and reinforce long-term Euro-Atlantic security.

• 

  Turbulent Transition in Iraq: Can It Succeed?

  Judith S. Yaphe

  This Strategic Forum policy brief analyzes Iraq’s fragile political transition following the June 2004 transfer of sovereignty from the Coalition Provisional Authority to the Iraqi Interim Government. It assesses three interrelated challenges: the risk of civil war, the legitimacy of transitional governance, and the long-term development of political institutions. While sectarian and ethnic tensions among Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, and Kurds are pronounced, the brief argues that large-scale civil war is not inevitable. Instead, instability is more likely to stem from extremist movements, militia power, and disputes over federalism and control of territory, particularly Kirkuk. The author contends that the success of Iraq’s transition depends on the United States empowering Iraqi leaders as genuine partners, avoiding overreach in political decisionmaking, supporting disarmament of militias, and sustaining security during institution building. Failure to manage the transition effectively could produce prolonged instability with regional consequences.

• 

  Preemptive Action: When, How, and to What Effect?

  M. Elaine Bunn

  This Strategic Forum paper examines the Bush administration’s evolving concept of preemptive action in the post-9/11 security environment. It analyzes the strategic rationale behind the emphasis on preemption—particularly concerns about rogue states, terrorism, and weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—and distinguishes between preemptive and preventive uses of force. The author explores historical precedents, legal and ethical considerations, operational requirements, and the potential military and political consequences of preemptive action. The paper argues that while preemption remains a legitimate option in extreme circumstances, especially where WMD threats are imminent, its application requires careful evaluation of intelligence reliability, proportionality, alliance cohesion, and long-term strategic effects. Ultimately, it concludes that preemptive military action is likely to remain a rare but important tool of U.S. national strategy, to be used judiciously and only under narrowly defined conditions.

• 

  Modernizing China’s Military: A High-Stakes Gamble?

  Howard M. Krawitz

  This Strategic Forum paper examines the political, social, and strategic risks associated with China’s accelerated military modernization. While Beijing seeks to transform the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into a technologically advanced, professional force capable of supporting China’s rise as a major power, the author argues that modernization may carry significant internal and regional consequences. The paper analyzes how professionalization, expanded recruitment from urban and educated populations, and enhanced military capabilities could alter the PLA’s traditional identity as the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party. It explores potential tensions between party control and military professionalism, evolving civil-military relations, and the broader implications for regional stability and U.S. security interests. Ultimately, modernization is framed as a high-stakes gamble: it could yield a more disciplined and stabilizing force—or foster nationalism, political friction, and increased strategic risk in the Asia-Pacific.

• 

  Resolving Korea’s Nuclear Crisis: Tough Choices for China

  Howard M. Krawitz

  This Strategic Forum paper analyzes China’s complex strategic calculus in addressing North Korea’s nuclear crisis. While the United States views Pyongyang’s nuclear program as an immediate proliferation and alliance threat, Beijing approaches the crisis through a broader lens shaped by regional stability, regime survival concerns, historical ties, domestic political sensitivities, and great-power rivalry with Washington. The author examines China’s limited leverage over North Korea, the risks of economic sanctions or regime collapse, refugee flows into Northeast China, and the potential for regional nuclear proliferation involving Japan or Taiwan. The paper argues that Beijing is likely to pursue a multilateral diplomatic approach that enhances Chinese influence while minimizing political risk and avoiding overt alignment with U.S. coercive strategies. Ultimately, China’s choices remain constrained by Pyongyang’s unpredictability and by Beijing’s desire to preserve regional stability and its international image.

• 

  Building an Iraqi Defense Force

  Joseph McMillan

  This Strategic Forum paper analyzes the challenges of reconstructing Iraq’s armed forces following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime. The author argues that rebuilding Iraq’s military must prioritize constitutional civilian control, professional military education, ethnic and sectarian inclusivity, and a defensively oriented force posture over rapid modernization or adoption of U.S. military models. Drawing on Iraq’s history of politicized civil-military relations and internal repression, the paper emphasizes the need to reform officer selection, integrate or demobilize militias, and establish parliamentary oversight mechanisms to prevent the armed forces from reemerging as instruments of domestic control or regional aggression. The study recommends a conscription-based force of approximately 350,000 personnel structured for territorial defense rather than power projection. Ultimately, it concludes that building a stable Iraqi nation-state must take precedence over building a powerful military.

• 

  NATO Decisionmaking: Au Revoir to the Consensus Rule?

  Leo G. Michel

  This Strategic Forum paper examines growing debates within NATO over the viability of the Alliance’s long-standing consensus rule for decisionmaking, particularly in light of enlargement and disagreements surrounding the Iraq War. The author analyzes how the consensus principle has shaped NATO’s political cohesion, operational planning, and crisis response, drawing on case studies including Kosovo, post–September 11 actions, and the February 2003 dispute over defensive planning for Turkey. While acknowledging frustrations with consensus procedures, the paper argues that the rule reflects NATO’s character as an alliance of sovereign states and remains central to its legitimacy and cohesion. It evaluates potential reforms—such as enhanced contingency planning authority, coalition-of-the-willing mechanisms within NATO, and modified voting procedures—and concludes that targeted procedural adjustments, rather than abandoning consensus, offer the most viable path forward.

• 

  Central Asian Leadership Succession: When, Not If

  Eugene B. Rumer

  This Strategic Forum paper examines the political dynamics of leadership succession in the Central Asian republics and assesses why succession will prove a critical strategic variable in the region’s future. Although regimes in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan showed relative stability in the early post-Soviet period, the author argues that transitions to a new generation of leaders could reshape internal politics, foreign policy alignments, and regional security. The analysis explains how succession patterns may either reinforce existing governance structures or exacerbate weaknesses, potentially triggering broader instability. The paper highlights the implications for U.S. interests, including counterterrorism cooperation, energy security, and great-power competition in Central Asia, and emphasizes the need for proactive engagement and strategic planning to manage evolving regional leadership dynamics

• 

  Finding a Kashmir Settlement: The Burden of Leadership

  Teresita C. Schaffer

  This Strategic Forum paper examines prospects for resolving the long-standing Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan and emphasizes the central role of political leadership in launching a viable peace process. The author argues that Kashmir cannot be treated in isolation from broader India–Pakistan relations and that a sustainable settlement requires careful design of a negotiating process rather than premature agreement on a final outcome. Drawing lessons from other international peace processes, the paper proposes confidence-building measures, structured dialogue across multiple issue areas, discreet back-channel diplomacy, and meaningful inclusion of Kashmiri representatives. It also assesses the potential role of third-party facilitation, particularly by the United States, in supporting bilateral negotiations. The paper concludes that continued reliance on violence and repression will impose severe political, economic, and security costs on both countries, underscoring the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement.

• 

  The ROK–U.S. Alliance: Where Is It Headed?

  Kim Dong Shin

  This Strategic Forum paper examines the evolving trajectory of the Republic of Korea–United States alliance amid shifting political, security, and strategic conditions in Northeast Asia. Marking the 50th anniversary of the Mutual Defense Treaty, the author argues that the alliance must adapt beyond its traditional focus on deterring North Korea to address new challenges, including Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program, generational political change in South Korea, and the broader U.S. global war on terrorism. The paper analyzes growing tensions in alliance perceptions, debates over U.S. force posture, operational control, and anti-American sentiment, and emphasizes the need for a comprehensive strategic plan to guide future cooperation. It proposes steps for resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis, strengthening trilateral coordination with Japan, managing adjustments to U.S. forces in Korea, and building a long-term peace regime on the Korean Peninsula while sustaining credible deterrence.

• 

  Colombia’s War: Toward a New Strategy

  John A. Cope

  This Strategic Forum paper analyzes the protracted internal conflict in Colombia and evaluates emerging strategic approaches to U.S. and Colombian policy at the onset of President Álvaro Uribe’s administration. It examines how the interplay of narcotics trafficking, insurgent violence, and state authority has shaped Colombia’s insecurity and constrained governance. The author argues that existing U.S. policy, traditionally framed through counterdrug and counterterrorism lenses, must evolve toward a comprehensive strategy that integrates governance, security cooperation, and institutional reform. The paper assesses how Washington and Bogotá can craft a cohesive campaign that strengthens public security, supports democratic institutions, and weakens illegal armed groups’ ability to exploit ungoverned spaces. It concludes by outlining strategic imperatives for advancing regional stability and strengthening bilateral cooperation.

• 

  China’s Trade Opening: Implications for Regional Stability

  Howard M. Krawitz

  This paper examines the strategic implications of China’s accession to the World Trade Organization in late 2001 and assesses how the resulting opening of Chinese trade could influence regional stability and great-power relations. The author analyzes how China’s integration into the global trading system might shape its political, economic, military, and social development, affect its external behavior, and alter the strategic environment in East Asia and beyond. The paper explores how China’s trade policies interact with U.S. interests, regional economic linkages, and governance dynamics, and considers whether increased economic engagement will yield strategic moderation or introduce new competitive pressures.

• 

  Dissuasion as a Strategic Concept

  Richard L. Kugler

  Dissuasion as a Strategic Concept examines how U.S. defense and foreign policy can go beyond traditional deterrence to prevent adversaries from choosing conflict or escalation in the first place. The paper defines dissuasion as the strategic practice of discouraging adversaries from contemplating harmful behavior by shaping their expectations and perceived costs of action. The author explores how dissuasion complements deterrence and assurance strategies, particularly in complex regional contexts such as the Korean Peninsula, where multiple actors’ perceptions and incentives interact. Drawing on historical cases and theory, the paper offers insights into designing policies that reduce the likelihood of miscalculation and strategic surprise through proactive engagement, credible commitment, and strategic communication.

• 

  Anticipating Strategic Surprise on the Korean Peninsula

  James J. Przystup

  This Strategic Forum paper explores the volatile and unpredictable nature of inter-Korean relations on the Korean Peninsula, emphasizing the potential for sudden diplomatic and security shifts — or “strategic surprise” — despite periods of stagnation. Drawing on developments following the historic June 2000 South-North Summit in Pyongyang, the author analyzes how engagement efforts between Seoul and Pyongyang raised hopes for reconciliation but ultimately yielded uneven progress, impacted by political dynamics in both Koreas and broader regional contexts. The paper assesses the implications of unpredictable shifts in bilateral relations for U.S. and allied policy, highlighting the need for proactive, adaptive diplomatic and security strategies that emphasize transparency, verification, and coordination among Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo to manage potential surprises and maintain stability on the Peninsula.

• 

  Flashman’s Revenge: Central Asia after September 11

  Eugene B. Rumer

  This paper examines the shifting strategic landscape of Central Asia in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and assesses how the United States’ emergence as the preeminent power affects regional politics, security dynamics, and relationships among key Central Asian states. It explores how historical legacies, geopolitical competition, and evolving U.S. policy priorities — particularly those related to counterterrorism and regional access — influence the balance of power in the five Central Asian republics. Drawing on historical context and policy analysis, the author analyzes whether the geopolitical influence of external actors, regional security cooperation, and domestic political considerations will shape long-term stability and strategic alignment in Central Asia. The paper highlights the challenges and opportunities the United States faces in balancing counter-Islamist terrorism efforts with broader strategic engagement in the region.

• 

  U.S.-Russian Relations: Toward a New Strategic Framework

  Eugene B. Rumer and Richard D. Sokolsky

  This Strategic Forum paper analyzes the evolving security relationship between the United States and the Russian Federation and proposes a strategic framework for managing bilateral challenges in the post–Cold War era. The authors review historical drivers of U.S.–Russian interaction, including arms control regimes, regional security crises, and shifts in great power postures. The analysis identifies structural impediments to cooperation and areas of persistent strategic friction, such as nuclear competition, NATO expansion, and crisis instability. The paper argues for a renewed strategic framework that balances deterrence with dialogue, strengthens risk reduction mechanisms, and incorporates broader geopolitical realities. It concludes with policy recommendations for U.S. and Russian leaders aimed at stabilizing relations, reducing misperceptions, and creating conditions for selective cooperation on global security issues.

• 

  Homeland Security: The New Role for Defense

  Steven J. Tomisek

  Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, U.S. defense forces were principally oriented toward deterrence, overseas stability operations, and traditional warfighting missions, and homeland defense was largely the responsibility of civilian law enforcement agencies. The shock of 9/11 and the emergence of transnational terrorist and bioterror threats prompted a strategic reassessment of the Department of Defense’s role in securing the American homeland. This paper examines how the Department of Defense has adapted to this changing security environment by reaffirming its constitutional role in protecting the United States against foreign aggression, expanding its mission set to include homeland defense, and collaborating more closely with federal, state, and local authorities. It analyzes the implications of this shift for force posture, interagency cooperation, and long-term national security strategy, and discusses the challenges and opportunities inherent in integrating homeland security considerations into defense planning.

• 

  U.S.-Iran Relations: Normalization in the Future?

  Judith S. Yaphe

  This Strategic Forum paper examines the prospects for normalization in U.S.–Iran relations, analyzing the historical evolution of bilateral tensions since the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the strategic barriers to sustained diplomatic engagement. The author evaluates the political, ideological, and security factors that have shaped U.S. policy toward Iran, including regional instability, nuclear concerns, and competing strategic priorities in the Middle East. The paper assesses whether changing geopolitical conditions or domestic political shifts could create opportunities for rapprochement, while recognizing enduring mistrust and structural obstacles. It concludes by outlining policy considerations for U.S. decisionmakers seeking to balance deterrence, regional security, and diplomatic engagement in managing the bilateral relationship.