U.S. Army War College

The United States is a global power with global interests and global responsibilities. The U. S. Army constitutes one of the means available to the United States to pursue and achieve its foreign policy goals. The end of the Cold War, and especially the events of September 11, 2001, have led to a redefinition of the U. S. Army's role. In this new environment, the purpose of the U. S. Army is not only to "win the war" but also to "win the peace." In this monograph, Dr. Yannis A. Stivachtis, an international security analyst who currently serves as Associate Professor of International and Strategic Studies at Virginia Tech, argues that due to the presence of several "weak" states in the international system, the United States needs to devise and employ strategies aimed at preventing and managing the outbreak of domestic conflicts that have the potential of undermining regional and international peace and stability.

The political transitions that followed revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia are by no means complete. They have gone through challenging phases, characterized by political volatility and tension. These challenges and uncertainties have a profound impact on the three countries' economies and the ability of their new political elites to build credibility and political legitimacy. Each of the three countries studied in this monograph has followed a distinct path, with its own opportunities and limitations. Policy reforms during each transition have reflected individual political, security, and social realities. However, one common lesson learned from their trajectories is that their challenges are exacerbated by a deficit of human and institutional capabilities to design and implement political and economic reforms.

To define future threat is, in a sense, an impossible task, yet it is one that must be done. In this monograph, Dr. Colin S. Gray explains that the only sources of empirical evidence accessible to us are the past and the present. We cannot obtain understanding about the future from the future. Dr. Gray draws noticeably upon the understanding of strategic history obtainable from Thucydides' great History of the Peloponnesian War. The monograph advises prudence as the operating light for American definition of future threat, and the author believes that there are historical parallels between the time of Thucydides and our own that can help us avoid much peril. The future must always be unpredictable to us in any detail, but the many and potent continuities in history's great stream of time can serve to alert us to what may well happen in kind.

With growing international awareness of energy security challenges, the promise of space-based solar power for clean and unlimited energy for all humankind is certainly appealing. While significant progress continues in the enabling technologies of such systems, is there compelling evidence that space-based solar power systems will provide the best energy solution? How does the Army's current approach to incorporating a diverse portfolio of renewable energy sources in distributed locations compare with the potential of enterprise ventures that beam energy from solar collectors in space? For more than 4 decades, many credible organizations in government and industry have explored the concept of space-based solar power. But their serious studies often conclude that such systems remain on the future horizon, usually at least 10 years away from practical application.

The term "confidence-building measures" is not new. The idea that international actors can come together to share information about their activities in order to establish trust, prevent misunderstandings and misperceptions and de-escalate conflicts is one that has a long pedigree. The development of confidence- building measures in the areas of biological and chemical warfare date back to the beginning of the 20th century. Confidence-building measures aimed at de-escalating conflicts along the Indo-Pakistan border date back to the 1970s. But what do these diverse events have to offer us as lessons as we think about confidence-building measures in cyberspace? Dr. Mary Manjikian's insightful analysis suggests that both territorially based and weapons-based confidence-building measures can provide models for the ways in which states can learn to cooperate and share information in regard to cyberspace and cyber weapons.

Locked in a confrontational stance lasting more than 3 decades, the United States and Iran have failed repeatedly to transform their hostile relationship. The ongoing nuclear talks, however, offer better prospects of not only addressing Iran's nuclear program challenges, but also developing a mutually beneficial strategic relationship between the United States and Iran in the long term. Why are these prospects better today? According to Mr. Roman Muzalevsky, the coming to power of new presidential administrations in both countries, the additional sanctions under the Barack Obama administration, game-changing regional trends, as well as U. S.-Iranian economic and security cooperation imperatives, have all facilitated an interim nuclear deal, prompting talks of a promising start in U. S.-Iranian ties that, if cultivated, could turn into a strategic detente by 2030.

Over the last years, missile defense has resurfaced as a major feature of the strategic debate in the United States and among its close allies. In 2010, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Summit of Heads of State saw intense discussions among transatlantic partners on the strategic value of missile defense alongside the traditional deterrence means of the Alliance. But if these transatlantic debates are for the most part still speculative, for many years, one close American ally has already faced the concrete and immediate challenge of defending its territory against missiles and rockets-Israel. As demonstrated during the last clashes between the Israeli Defense Forces and Palestinian factions (2012 and 2014), missile defense is now a pillar of Israel's strategic culture. Understanding this evolution demands an in-depth look at its political, military, and technical ramifications. That is the very purpose of this new monograph by Dr. Jean-Loup Samaan.

What began in 2011 as a series of demonstrations against domestic circumstances has since evolved into a decidedly regional and therefore strategic matter. The changing of regimes in Tunis, Cairo, and Tripoli has also changed the way Arab leaders engage with each other, and the way the region as a whole orchestrates its interstate relations. Often overlooked during debates about what began 4 years ago, the Arab Spring has spilled over from the national to the regional level, paralyzing some traditionally strong actors while empowering others. As Dr. Florence Gaub writes in this monograph, the region has therefore entered its "Gulf Moment"-a time in its political relations defined no longer by Cairo, Damascus, or Baghdad, but by Riyadh, Abu Dhabi, and Doha. For the longest time, the Arab Gulf States were seen as political bystanders in the region, managing rather than shaping events.

The strategic quality of Landpower is widely known, but not widely understood. In this monograph, Dr. Colin S. Gray explores and explains the meaning of strategic Landpower. He is concerned particularly to argue that, although Landpower today must function in a joint environment, typically it is the dominant element in the team for U. S. national security. The monograph lays emphasis upon the place of the human domain that leads in the role played by ground forces in strategy. Because of some widespread conceptual misuse, many people are not used to thinking of Landpower as a strategic instrument for American security policy. Dr. Gray aspires to help reduce the popularity of this important misconception. It is necessary for good policy that American Landpower should be considered and debated properly, which is to say in appropriate strategic terms.

From the National Security Act of 1947 to the intelligence and security restructuring after September 11, 2001 (9/11), our nation has stood up new security organizations to meet new challenges. On October 10, 2010, my team and I helped give life to a new U. S. security organization when I assumed command of the United States Army Cyber Command. As its first commander, I was more than "present at the creation;" I was responsible for it. In a crowded, yet resource-constrained defense establishment, Army Cyber was responsible for all Army cyber efforts-not only in relation to U. S. Cyber Command, but also the Department of Defense and U. S. Intelligence Community. A single-page General Order from the Secretary of the Army served as the command's founding document and mission statement. Army Cyber Command was designated the lead for Army missions, actions, and functions related to cyberspace.

One of the hallmarks of a true profession is its ability to assess and regulate itself, especially with respect to adherence to its foundational ethos. Such self-examination is difficult and often causes discomfort within the profession. Nonetheless, it is absolutely necessary to enable members of the profession to render the service for which the profession exists. U. S. military professionals have never shied away from this responsibility, and they do not today, as evidenced by this riveting monograph. Discussing dishonesty in the Army profession is a topic that will undoubtedly make many readers uneasy. It is, however, a concern that must be addressed to better the Army profession. Through extensive discussions with officers and thorough and sound analysis, Drs. Leonard Wong and Stephen Gerras make a compelling argument for the Army to introspectively examine how it might be inadvertently encouraging the very behavior it deems unacceptable.