“Stability Operations in Strategic Perspective: A Skeptical View”, an article written by Dr. Colin S. Gray (2006), debates against United State’s military involvement in postwar stability operations. In Mateja Peter’s (2015) article, “Between Doctrine and Practice: The UN Peacekeeping Dilemma”, he outlines the methods used by the United Nations (UN) enforcement peacekeeping efforts that are contradictory to the usual UN precepts. Peter (2015) states that stability operations include the “enforcement of political solutions through support of a government’s statebuilding ambitions and its attempts to extend state authority in the midst of conflict and in enforcement of military victories through the offensive use of force” (p. 351). Many would argue that peacekeeping and stability operations in Afghanistan and Iraq benefit the regions they possess both socially, economically, and politically. Dr. Grey’s opinion is less generous; he argues that stability operations like the ones outlined in the QDR are an irrational approach to conflict that arises in the Middle East after war. A multi-faceted approach can be taken to break down the persuasiveness of Dr. Colin Gray’s article. The article can be analyzed from seven separate angles that include the following: the author’s establishment of …show more content…
Colin S. Gray wrote the article, “Stability Operations in Strategic Perspective: A Skeptical View” in 2006 as a response to the Defense Department’s approval of stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dr. Gray is well established within the field of political science, with over forty years of experience (“Dr. Colin S. Gray”, para. 3-7). He is a political scientist with broad interests in national security policy, strategic theory and military history. His work focuses on the theory and practice of strategy, the dialogue between policy and military force, and in the utilization of historical experience for the education of policymakers. (“Dr. Colin S. Gray”, para.
2000 - 2004 -. The War to End All Wars. Michael Duffy. Original Material. Primary Documents Online -.
Thinking historically while conducting counterinsurgency in the 21st century poses questions regarding how to develop political and strategic plans. This bibliographic essay will examine the political and military aspect of fighting counterinsurgent warfare by 20th century theorists Galula’s, “Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice” and Trinquier’s, “Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice”. Strategy in fighting guerilla wars will be discussed by comparing conflicts in battles and ideologies from the past to current day. Moreover, ways to avoid the one size fits all war mentality when combating modern day insurgents will be recommended.
Shalikashvili, J.M. (n.d.). Shape, Respond, Prepare Now -- A Military Strategy for a New Era. National Military Strategy. Retrieved September 14, 2004, from http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/nms/index.html#Top
On the other hand, in The Slippery Slope to Preventive War, Neta Crawford questions the arguments put forward by the Bush administration and the National Security Strategy in regard to preemptive action and war. Crawford also criticizes the Bush administration as they have failed to define rogue states and terrorists as they have “blurred the distinction” between “the terrorists and those states in which they reside”. In Crawford’s point of view, taking the battle to the terrorists as self-defence of a preemptive nature along with the failure to distinguish between terrorist and rogue states is dangerous as “preventive war
The United Nations General Assembly 36-103 focused on topics of hostile relations between states and justification for international interventions. Specifically mentioned at the UNGA was the right of a state to perform an intervention on the basis of “solving outstanding international issues” and contributing to the removal of global “conflicts and interference". (Resolution 36/103, e). My paper will examine the merits of these rights, what the GA was arguing for and against, and explore relevant global events that can suggest the importance of this discussion and what it has achieved or materialized.
BIBLIOGRAPHY NATO Information Service. 1989. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation: Facts and Figures. Brussels: NATO Kaplan, Lawrence S, ed. 1968. NATO And The Policy Of Containment. Boston: Raytheon Education Company. Richard D. Lawrence, and Jeffrey Record, eds. 1974. U.S. Force Structure in NATO. Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institution. Faringdon, Hugh. 1989. Strategic Geography: NATO, the Warsaw Pact, and the Superpowers. London and New York: Routledge. Knorr, Klaus. 1959. NATO And American Security. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. NATO Information Service. 1983. NATO Handbook. Brussels: NATO Coffey, Joseph I. 1997. The Future Role Of NATO. New York: Foreign Policy Association. NATO Information Service. 1984. NATO And The Warsaw Pact: Force Comparisons. Brussels: NATO Bolles, Blair, and Francis O. Wilcox. Bagby, Wesley M. 1999. America’s International Relations Since World War I. New York: Oxford University Press Rosati, Jerel A. 1999. The Politics Of United States Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers
Maxwell, Hilary. “Warfare Plans of Countries.” Monta Vista High School, Cupertino. 26 Jan. 2014. Lecture.
Should the government decrease military spending or should it increase military spending? This is a question that many Americans wrestle with, and politically speaking, is a point of great contention since to many, military might evokes a sense of security. However, when considering this question from a foreign policy standpoint, does current military spending really match the current level of threats faced by the United States, or are too many dollars being allocated for an unnecessary level of military strength? There are certainly cons in making the decision to drastically lower military spending, but they are minimal when compared to the positive ramifications such a decision would have. This paper aims to explore these pros and cons
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
By the end of the Cold War the literature focusing on strategic studies has highlighted transformational changes within international system that affected and altered the very nature of war. As a result many security studies scholars have renounced traditional theories of strategic thought. Clausewitzian theory, in particular, has taken a lot of criticism, regarding its relevance to modern warfare. (Gray, How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?, 2005)
In modern military theory, the highest level is the strategic level, in which activities at the strategic level focus directly on policy objectives, both during peace and warfare. In the study of modern military strategy, there is a distinction between military strategy and national strategy, in which the former is the use of military objective to secure political objectives and the latter coordinates and concentrates all the elements of national...
Consequences of intervention can include the loss of lives from an otherwise uninvolved country, the spread of violence, and the possibility of inciting conflict over new problems, just to name a few (Lecture, 11/15/16). For example, John Mueller considers the potential negative consequences of intervention prove that they are insignificant to the cause of humanitarian intervention as a whole. Moreover, with intervention into ethnic conflicts, the outcome, no matter how positive, is overshadowed by a gross exaggeration of negative consequences (Mueller). In both Yugoslavia and Rwanda the solution, to Mueller appeared simple, a well ordered and structured militarized presence was all that was required to end the conflict (Mueller). If this is the case, when discussing whether or not intervention is necessary the political elite must not over-exaggerate the difficulty.
13 Oct 2014. Lecture. Barbieri-Low, Anthony. "Warfare and State Formation. "
Thakur, R. & Sidhu, W. P. S., 2006. The Iraq Crisis and World Order: Strutural, Institutional and Normative Challenges. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
IOs and states play a critical role in maintaining world peace and security. The United Nations (UN), in particular, is the centerpiece of global governance with respect to the maintenance of world peace. The UN provides general guidelines for all the states on how to solve potential conflicts and maintain international o...