Publications

This report looks at the US military services struggling to adapt to an expeditionary era. This expeditionary era has emerged from two defining developments. First, due to the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989 and of the Soviet Union, itself, in 1991,  more and more US combat forces have been brought home from the overseas garrisons, bases, and ports they once occupied on the periphery of America’s Cold War adversary. Second, there is ample reason to anticipate that future adversaries, having seen Iraq routed twice by US-led coalition forces after they were allowed to deploy unmolested into Southwest Asia, will seek asymmetric ways of opposing the movement of US military forces into their region.

This report addresses the issue of the United States pursuing a preventive war (or what the Bush Administration has labeled “preemptive” war) against Iraq. Preventive wars and attacks are relatively rare in history, and for good reason. Any war is a risky proposition. Choosing to assume that risk by initiating conflict is something that states have done typically with great reluctance. Nevertheless, a strong case can be made for launching a preventive war against Iraq.

This net assessment of the military-technical revolution, issued in July of 1992, is perhaps the best-known assessment prepared by the Office of Net Assessment. It has, I believe, held up well over time. The strategic management issues it raised should still be of special interest to top-level Department of Defense officials.

The Department of Defense (DoD) in its 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) concluded that the “anti-access” threat—the complex mix of political, geographic, and military factors that could prevent or delay US forces from deploying to a combat theater—is the dominant strategic challenge confronting future US power-projection operations in regions of potential conflict, particularly in Asia.

In early 2002, the Department of Defense (DoD) unveiled the results of its Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). The NPR was conducted to meet a congressional requirement for a “comprehensive review” of the policy, strategy, plans, stockpile, and infrastructure for US nuclear forces. It was the second such review. A similar undertaking was completed in 1994.

The once mighty U.S. Navy is in precipitous decline. At least, that is what a vocal group of naval officers, defense analysts and Congressional leaders strongly believe. They support their judgment by comparing the number of ships in the Navy’s “Total Ship Battle Force” with those of past U.S. fleets. Their most common standard for comparison is the “600-ship” fleet championed by John Lehman, President Ronald Reagan’s first, most aggressive and politically savvy, Secretary of the Navy. When compared to that number, the 316 ships of the Fiscal Year