RANDApproved for public release; distribution unlimited PREFACE This monograph was prepared as part of a project entitled "Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW)" carried out in the Strategy and Doctrine Program of RAND's Arroyo Center, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the United States Army. The purpose of this project was to assess how demographic changes will affect future conflict (limited conventional fighting as well as nonconventional fighting, e.g., insurgency) and U.S. Army combat (conventional and counterinsurgency) as well as noncombat missions (e.g., peacekeeping, civil affairs, psychological operations, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief). In addition, it examined the range of potential new Army deployments in the less-developed world, including:• Army roles and missions in support of either unilateral or multinational deployment efforts;• Army roles and missions in postconfiict reconstitution and reconstruction;• Army roles and missions as part of, or in support of, peacekeeping operations.The first phase of the project focused on the effects of urbanization and population growth in the developing world and, more specifically, on the implications of these demographic trends for the Middle East and for the conduct of insurgency and counterinsurgency operations.iv Operations Other Than War: Implications for th e U.S. ArmyThe project's second phase included several case studies representing the range of missions and requirements the United States is likely to face in the future» paying particular attention to the following: Army roles and missions in providing relief and humanitarian assistance to refugees; involvement, and the implications of intervening, in internal ethnic conflicts; and peace enforcement and peacekeeping operations in urban settings.This monograph was written for the project's final phase. It supports the suggestion that U.S. forces will continue to be involved in operations other than war» describes the operational requirements of such missions» and makes specific recommendations for the U.S. Army regarding doctrine» training» equipment, and force structure. It concludes by summarizing which kinds of operations other than war the United States has proven competence in and which are more difficult. This monograph should be of interest to officers of the Army Staff and its field operating agencies engaged in these issues.
This essay makes four points: (1) despite the assertions of some of their proponents, static game-theoretic and optimal-tariff arguments suggest that states should not undertake hegemonic responsibilities to maintain an open trading system; (2) hegemonic states have, in fact, cooperated with others, despite risks to themselves; (3) Japan, the hegemonic successor or condominial associate of the United States in the years to come, is also likely to cooperate to prevent the collapse of the international trading system. This means (4) that hegemonic or near-hegemonic powers have either acted irrationally or that their calculations have rested upon a different and more dynamic rational foundation. Specifically, systemic as well as domestic considerations have influenced their thinking and determined their policies. A major creditor power like Japan must find means of allowing others to earn surpluses in its own market or of providing assistance on concessional terms.
S. military doctrine has recently elevated stability and support operations (SASO) to be a mission on par with the traditional combat missions, offense and defense. The new doctrinal approach to SASO represents a revolutionary change in the military's raison d'être; now the armed forces' job is not only to win battles, but to create space for political negotiations and accords through the provision of controlled, nonviolent environments and other forms of military assistance to civilians. This article puts this change into context, looking at the American military's history of SASO and the longstanding debates about the military's priorities and roles.On 28 November 2005, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) released Directive Number 3000.05 1 requiring stability operations to be treated on par with offense and defense in every aspect of military preparation. In its directive, the Pentagon offered only a very general characterization of stability operations: "Military and civilian activities conducted across the spectrum from peace to conflict to establish or maintain order in States and regions." Notably, the mission includes civilians. It involves the establishment and maintenance of order. And it applies equally in peacetime and in conflict. These aspects of stability operations differentiate them from the armed forces' traditional offensive and defensive missions and represent a dramatic change in the military's perception of its role and responsibilities. Indeed, over the past five years, both DoD's civilian leadership and military officers appear to have embraced stability and support operations (SASO) in doctrine and nascent changes to training, force structure, and equipping. Military leaders now are calling for U.S. forces to be prepared for "full-spectrum operations" entailing "the application of combat power through simultaneous and continuous combinations of four elements: offense, defense, stability, and civil support." 2 Elevating SASO to a core mission alongside offense and defense is a radical change that represents a new raison d'être for the U.S. military. It is the armed forces' most fundamental adjustment since the establishment of the Department of Defense in 1947, arguably more foundational than the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols reorganization. 3 Military leaders themselves are touting this as a revolution. And, despite being so recent, the change is whole-hearted, with a fully developed legitimizing logic that goes something like this: the military has a conventional capabilities surplus but a deficit for conducting the kinds
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.