|
McNair Paper 63, All Possible Wars?
Towards a Consensus View of the Future Security Environment, 2001-2025, November
2000
Appendix A
Primary Sources
Department of Defense, Report of the Quadrennial Defense Review, May 1997. The section entitled "Global Security Environment" in the QDR report is summarized in chapter four of this survey (see especially pp. 32-36). National Defense Panel, Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century, December 1997. The panel was chartered to provide alternatives to recommendations of the QDR report, and reflected concern over defense transformation. The analysis provides a snapshot of defense requirements for 2020, and implicit forecasts appear throughout the report. However, a section of scenario-based hypotheses on security conditions in the 2010-2020 is also included (pp. 8-10). Shaped Stability: The United States is engaged internationally with public support, and a high level of interagency cooperation. International economic cooperation increases global wealth. Cooperative security relationships are developed, and international law is generally observed. However, ethnic and nationalistic tensions, resource shortages, WMD proliferation, and demographic problems remain. Extrapolation from Today: The global system is one of economic growth, but regionally uneven. Rogue states continue proliferating and posturing. United States remains the leading world power, but "its sustained political-economic-military dominance is uncertain." Competition for Leadership: The resurgence of traditional balance-of-power with one or more powers (or an alliance) challenging the United States for dominance. New alliances and trading partnerships form; increased military spending and arms races develop. Humanitarian missions and peace operations dwindle in significance in comparison to readiness. Chronic Crisis: The American public is preoccupied with domestic matters and perceives little chance of influencing the chaos abroad--nationalisms and ethnic hatreds, deteriorating global economic conditions, narcostates, etc. Since the NDP's interest in fostering transformation appears to pre-date its futures assessment work, the linkage between the scenario building exercise and the force structure recommendation is not particularly explicit. The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, New World Coming, September 15, 1999. Largely the brainchild of then-Speaker of the House of Representatives, Congressman Newt Gingrich, the National Security Study (as it was orginally titled) was chartered by Secretary of Defense William Cohen in July 1998 using funding set aside in the FY98 defense budget. The study organization consists of two levels of participants. The commission members include fourteen prominent American leaders selected on a bipartisan basis. The original chairmen were former Senators David Boren and Warren Rudman. Before releasing New World Coming, Boren resigned and was replaced as co-chairperson by former Senator Gary Hart. A second level working group consists of noted scholars and subject matter experts as full time or part time professional staff. The executive director is General Charles Boyd, USAF (Ret.). The study is being completed in three phases: assessment of the future security environment (New World Coming), completed September 15, 1999; "seeking a national strategy," completed April 15, 2000; and "building for peace" (national security architecture recommendations), to be completed March 15, 2001. The findings of the commission members are presented as "Major Themes and Implications" on pages 141-145 of New World Coming. The majority of the published text was prepared by the professional staff. White House A National Security Strategy for a New Century, October 1998. An annual report on the President's national security strategy was first mandated by Congress during the Reagan administration. It has since become the primary written public expression of the administration's objectives and actions in foreign affairs, and is intended to reflect the coordination of defense strategy, diplomacy, and international economic policy in maintaining national security. Drafted by the staff of the National Security Council, such a document is--as to be expected--used to highlight administration success and persuade Congress to support presidential policies. The 1998 report reflected the conclusions of QDR 1997, and incorporated some of the QDR report language. Thus, the assumptions concerning the future security environment are similar in both reports. However, of interest is the blending of the Department of Defense perspective with those of the Departments of State, Treasury, Commerce, and other agencies involved with security issues. Unlike QDR 1997, assessment of the future security environment is not confined to a specific section, but is evident throughout the document. A National Security Strategy for a New Century, December 1999. While espousing similar policy objectives, the 1999 version articulates a slightly modified vision in which the role of the United States as the mentor of international democratization is somewhat deemphasized and the positive effects of economic globalization (as an inevitable and relatively uncontrollable force) is asserted. Thus, the concept of the threat of potential disillusionment with slow-paced effects of democratic improvements in developing states is replaced by the fear of a growing backlash against economic globalization. Overall, the policies identified parallel the 1998 version, as would be expected late in the same administration's second term. Intelligence Community
National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2010, November 1997. Global Trends 2010 represents the primary, unclassified, public consensus of the U.S. intelligence community. The National Intelligence Council includes 12 national intelligence officers drawn from the private sector as well as career intelligence officers, and is considered "one of the few bodies that can speak authoritatively on substantive issues for the Intelligence Community as a whole."503 The assessment is the result of conference deliberations sponsored by NIC and the Institute for National Strategic Studies at National Defense University in 1996, as well as follow-on discussions chaired by Richard Cooper, then-Chairman of the NIC. The principal drafter was Barry Lowenkron. Original publication (limited to official use) was in February 1997. The National Intelligence Council is currently embarked in development of a significant revision, Global Trends 2015, which is expected to be released before the start of QDR 2001. Working papers, briefing materials and notes from "Alternative Global Futures: 2000-2015" workshops held September, October, and December 1999.* In preparing an update to Global Trends 2010, the National Intelligence Council has sponsored a series of three workshops bringing together selected scholars and mid-range government officials. Discussions were focused on futures scenario development based on the drivers of current and anticipated trends. In addition to briefing materials, over a dozen papers were presented by subject matter experts. A compilation of briefing materials, papers and personal notes were used for survey of this source. Defense Intelligence Agency, Alternative Futures in International Security Affairs, 2015: A Summary Study of the "Transformed World, 2015" Project (prepared by Paul F. Herman), December 1997.** [Unclassified sections] Primarily directed by Paul F. Herman, a career intelligence officer, the project was a deliberate attempt to use intelligence assessments in constructing alternative futures rather than a futures estimate mode. The study bears a resemblance to Air Force 2025, particularly in the geometric expression of the intersections of alternative trends. Office of the Secretary of Defense Department of Defense, "The Projected Security Environment," from Defense Planning Guidance Update for Fiscal Years 2001-2005 (Washington, April 1999): 4-7 [Unclassified section] The overall Defense Planning Guidance, which is the Secretary of Defense planning directive for development of the Defense program for resource allocation, is classified Secret. However, "The Projected Security Environment" section is unclassified. The section identifies the following as security challenges the U.S. will continue to face in the future: (1) regional coercion or aggression, (2) proliferation of dangerous weapons and technologies, (3) terrorism and international crime, (4) threats to the U.S. homeland, (5) failed states and humanitarian disasters (expected between now and 2015), (6) asymmetric challenges, (7) wild cards (ranging "from the unanticipated emergence of new technologies to the loss of U.S. access to critical facilities and lines of communications in key regions, to the takeover of friendly regimes by hostile parties."), and (8) the potential for a global competitor (but not expected until after 2015). Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), 1999 Summer Study Final Report, "Asia 2025" (Newport, RI: July 25-August 4, 1999). Assembled briefing slides and text of one of two summer studies by the Office of Net Assessment for 1999 focussing on future trends in Asia. Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), 1999 Summer Study Final Report, "Maintaining U.S. Military Superiority" (Newport, RI: July 25- August 4, 1999). Assembled briefing slides and text of one of two Office of Net Assessment summer studies for 1999 focusing on the requirements needed to maintain U.S. military superiority. Joint Chiefs of Staff/Unified Commands Joint Staff, Joint Strategy Review 1998 Report* (September 4, 1998). The Joint Strategy Review (JSR) produces an annual report intended provide the recommendations of the Director, Strategic Plans and Policy (J-5), to a series of joint strategic documents, including the Joint Staff-drafted National Military Strategy (NMS), the Chairman's Long-Range Vision (currently JV2010), and the Joint Planning Document (JPD)--which itself is the Joint Staff's official input to the overall DOD Defense Planning Guidance (DPG). Classified Secret, the report contains numerous Unclassified sections as well as an Unclassified transmittal letter. Traditionally, the JSR has been an update to the previous year's comprehensive look at potential security threats. However, recent reports have been specifically thematic in topic or methodology. The Joint Strategy Working Group was tasked with JSR 1998, which contained representatives from the services, CINCs, Defense Intelligence Agency, and Joint Staff, was directed to analyze the conclusions of the JSR 1997 report by creating five alternative future scenarios and testing their implications. This was the first time the JSR focused exclusively on scenario building, and reflected the fact that scenario building had come into vogue in DOD, as it had in contemporary corporate planning. U.S. Joint Forces Command (J-9), "Futures Program" Briefs, November 1998-September 1999. U.S. Joint Forces Command (then known as U.S. Atlantic Command) was designated the Department of Defense executive agent for joint experimentation in 1988. As part of an effort to define the anticipated requirements for joint experimentation, the Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Harold W. Gehman, Jr., USN, directed the convocation of several workshops to assess future security threats and U.S. military responses. Workshops included representatives from the services, unified commanders-in-chief, and defense agencies. This "Joint Futures Program," facilitated by a defense contractor, resulted in a series of briefs and papers detailing desired operational capabilities for future systems useful in dealing with a series of regional warfighting scenarios. Primary focus was the assessment of future military technology and potential experiments that could facilitated advanced development of new systems. Since the program results are not contained in a single document, available briefing slides, conference notes, and concept papers were collectively surveyed. National Defense University Patrick M. Cronin, ed., 2015: Power and Progress (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1996). A product of the Institute for National Strategic Studies "Project 2025," this volume assessed the future security environment in terms of great power competition, environment degradation and resource scarcity, the formation of alliances and coalitions, and future trends in technology and warfare. Institute for National Security Studies, Strategic Assessment 1998: Engaging Power for Peace (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1998). This is the fourth volume in a series of annual assessments based on a particular theme of U.S. defense policy. The 1998 study assesses the implications of the recommendations of the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), and is shaped along the concept of "Shape, Respond, Prepare." The "Alternative Futures" chapter forecasts: "Today's states are largely at peace with one another and likely to remain so through 2018. Nevertheless, militaries are designed for the exception, not the ordinary." But the assessment "sketches a three dimensional space" of potential military challenges: (1) larger foes (a larger adversary than any current rogue state), (2) foes who have mastered nasty technologies, such as WMD or space and information warfare, and (3) "a profusion of messier situations" such as civil wars, ethnic cleansing, and politico-humanitarian disasters. The study identifies "three transition states, China, Russia, and India," as possessing "the theoretical resources and sufficient independence of interest to become larger adversaries of the core states." However, "a global challenge to the United States is much less likely; that would take decades of military investment, practice in power projection, and a belief system that results in global interests--all of which no large transitional state possesses." The study postulates that "nasty technologies of warfare" will spread faster due to globalization, will enhance area-denial strategies versus U.S. power projection, "could extract unacceptable casualties from military forces operating overseas," and could cause "potential threats against cities of core states, especially in North America, [to] have to be taken seriously." Nasty technologies can be defended against, but defenses could never be completely leak-proof. Information technology can be used to "undo the three pillars of the coalition victory in the Gulf: superior logistics, command-and-control warfare, and dominant maneuver." However the development of WMD or strategic delivery systems "is fraught with risks. The very activity gets one noticed and may lead to countermeasures by the United States and others before efforts have been completed." The study emphasizes that "messier" situations/conflicts are manpower intensive and usually do not provide the opportunity for decisive victory. Institute for National Strategic Studies, Strategic Assessment 1999: Priorities for a Turbulent World (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1999). The fifth volume in the series, Strategic Assessment 1999 adopts a somewhat more pessimistic tone than its predecessor, emphasizing (as suggested by its subtitle) the increase in failing states, potential regional competitors, and potential for chaotic world conditions. Emphasis is also placed on the effects of globalization. Army Army After Next Briefs on "Future Military Art." A series of briefings used to describe the expected future battlefield and military missions requiring Army transformation. William T. Johnsen, Force Planning Considerations for Army XXI (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute, February 18, 1998). Provides an outline for the near-term (10-15 year) future security environment that influences the requirements for a modernizing U.S. Army. Earl H. Tilford, Jr., ed., World View: The 1998 Strategic Assessment From the Strategic Studies Institute (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, February 26, 1998). An annual survey of current and future world trends. There was no version published in 1999. Navy CNO Strategic Studies Group XIV, The International Security Environment to the Year 2005, study group final report (Newport, RI, June 1995). The Strategic Studies Group (SSG) consists of 8-9 Navy and Marine O6's assigned for one year at the Naval War College, Newport, RI, to analyze a specific defense issue at the personal direction of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO). The majority of SSG members are considered strong candidates for promotion to flag officer. The task given by CNO in 1994-95 was to consider "what elected leaders would ask the Naval services to do and how Americans expect it done" in the future. As self-described, the study "departed from the customary practice of assessing extant trends, coupling them with new departures and melding them into a single predictive scenario." "Instead, the SSG relied upon methodology developed from corporate planning techniques (specifically, Royal Dutch Shell as articulated in Peter A. Schwartz, The Art of the Long View) to draw up scenarios for two alternative futures that plausibly bound the possibilities for the international security environment ten years hence." Two alternative worlds were developed, X and Y. The X World is characterized as a "new Cold War" on a regional scale. The "dominating feature is the existence of clearly perceived threats from one of the great powers prompting defense planning and procurement to counter the threat." Worldwide, defense spending is a higher share of a lower GDP caused by lower growth and trade protectionism. Greater emphasis on regional balances of power; lower emphasis on north-south cooperation and environment. The Y World is characterized by lack of a great power threat, and increased multilateralism with "relative cooperation in the zones of peace but conflict in the zones of turmoil." Key features include: more open economic competition; greater economic growth; defense spending is a smaller portion of larger GDP due to lack of major power threat; and DOD is reliant on the civil sector for dual use technology while the defense industrial base is unprotected. "A permissive environment for transnational actors in terrorism and crime provokes international response, including an expanded role for international law." Environment and world development rise on the list of global concerns. Richard Danzig, The Big Three: Our Greatest Security Risks and How to Address Them (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University Press, 1999). Written between his appointment as Undersecretary and Secretary of the Navy, Richard Danzig's "big three" security threats consist of: (1) a renewed major military competition along the lines of the Cold War; (2) the risk of traumatic attack using WMD; and (3) potential lack of domestic support for U.S. Armed Forces. Marine Corps Charles C. Krulak, "Ne Cras" ("Not Like Yesterday") Brief. When Krulak served as Commandant (1995-1999), this brief represented the Marine Corps view of the shape of future wars and its role in them. It takes its name from the reaction of Emperor Augustus to the complete loss of Quinctilius Varus legions to the Gauls while "hemmed in by forests and marshes and ambuscades." Charles C. Krulak, "The Three Block War: Fighting in Urban Areas," speech presented at National Press Club, Washington, D.C. (October 10, 1997); published in Vital Speeches of the Day (December 15, 1997): 139-141. Remarks by Krulak to the National Press Club. In effect, it is a text version of the points of the "Ne Cras" brief. Air Force Joseph A. Engelbrecht, Jr., et al., Alternative Futures for 2025: Security Planning to Avoid Surprise (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press, September 1996). A significant effort at generating a complete range of alternative futures and describing their characteristics in detail. Alternative futures are discussed in a comparative format in terms of "plausible history;" nature of actors, international politics, U.S. national security strategy, humanity, technology, environment, the defense budget, U.S. military capabilities, and "implications." The six scenarios developed in detail are: Gulliver's Travails: "a world of rampant nationalism, state and nonstate-sponsored terrorism, and fluid coalitions." Zaibatsu: "a world dominated by corporate economic interests" of multinational corporations. Digital Cacophony: "a world completely enmeshed in technology" in which "the world struggles with rapid change and its effects." King Khan: a world dominated by an Asian coalition led by China and including Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia and Mongolia. Halfs and Half-Naughts: a world in which turbulent, uneven economic changes have greatly magnified the gap between have and have-not nations. 2015 Crossroads: "a bridge designed to serve as a decision point from which the other alternative futures might be reached." Federally-Funded Research Institutes Zalmay Khalilzad and Ian O. Lesser, eds., Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century: Regional Futures and U.S. Strategy (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1998). Future security forecast developed on a region-by-region basis on contract to the U.S. Air Force. Frederick Thompson et al., Vision-21 Source Book Volume 1: The Process (Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analyses, November 26, 1996). The Vision-21 project was conducted by the staff of the Center for Naval Analyses at the request of the Marine Corps. Additional participation was provided by the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Arlington Institute, and Applied Futures, Inc. Following a series of seminars and workshops involving 19 general officers, the Marine Corps adopted a vision statement that became a basis for their annual Commandant's Planning Guidance and Congressional confirmation testimony for the then-incoming commandant, General Charles C. Krulak. The deliberations of this project greatly influenced the "Ne Cras" briefing. Volume 1 outlines the assessment process and primary conclusions, as well as identifying the source material used in the deliberations. Independent Research Institutes Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr., The Conflict Environment of 2016: A Scenario-Based Approach (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, October 1996). Formerly known as the Defense Budget Project, CSBA identifies itself as an independent research institute that attempts "to make clear the inextricable link between near-term and long-range military planning and defense investment strategies." Krepinevich utilizes an alternative scenarios approach to develop four potential conflict scenarios for 2016: (1) great power competition between China and the United States and a blockade of Taiwan; (2) blockade of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran; (3) Russian pressure on Ukranian independence; (4) and the internal collapse of Indonesia. Jacquelyn K. Davis and Michael J. Sweeney, Strategic Paradigm 2025: U.S. Security Planning for a New Era (Dulles, VA: Brassey's, 1999). Strategic Paradigm 2025 stems from a series of three conferences sponsored in late 1998 by the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis in association with the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University. The study identifies overall global trends, discusses individual trends, and assesses trends directly affecting future warfare. It then develops in detail four alternative paradigms (scenarios) of the world of 2025. Paradigm A is a world in which a coalition of states has developed to oppose U.S. interests. Paradigm B postulates a world of multipolarity in which the United States does not have a direct military opponent, but competes economically and politically with five or six great powers. Paradigm C is a weak unipolarity system in which the United States remains the world's sole superpower without a direct competitor, but with five or six great powers in the background. Unlike in Paradigm B, the great powers have developed along democratic lines and are not openly hostile to U.S. interests. Paradigm D is a world of chaos in which the United States as sole superpower faces a world of increasing numbers of failed states and anarchy. Davis and Sweeney conclude with a series of general observations and direct recommendations for future American security policies. As noted, the study is dismissive of the value of assessing wild cards in long-range planning. Nongovernmental Organizations Allen Hammond, Which World? Scenarios for the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: Island Press/Shearwater Books, 1998). A scenario-based approach, Which World? analyzes resource and economic trends on a regional basis out to the year 2050. Under the motto "global destiny, regional choices," Hammond, a staff member of the World Resources Institute, identifies "trajectories," or alternative scenarios, for regional trends (demographic, environmental, economic, political, social, technological, and security-related) that lead to three alternative worlds: Market World: A new age of overall global prosperity based on economic reform, technological innovation, and regional integration; but with same havenots along with the haves. This could be characterized as benign globalization. Fortress World: Global economic downturn, cascading environmental problems, and social ills lead to regional instability, breakdowns in social order, and international conflict. Wealthy nations are generally able to protect themselves (as fortresses), but they too suffer effects due to negative aspects of globalization. Transformed World: Positive social, political, and environmental conditions are achieved due to wise policies, the sharing of international power, new social organizations, and effective issue-based coalition building. Which World? is designed to promote aspirations for a Transformed World, and is representative of the overall views of NGOs specializing on environmental and international social issues. Edmund Cairns, A Safer Future: Reducing the Human Cost of War (Oxford: Oxfam Publications, 1997). Sponsored by Oxfam, Cairns' study is representative of the views of many humanitarian NGOs concerning the increasing brutality of warfare. Unlike forecasts of future high technology wars with less collateral damage, Cairns identifies a trend toward civil and internal wars in which civilians will be the primary targets and casualties. Cairns maintains that "modern conflict--if that is what we should call it--challenges the very distinction between war and peace...Many modern wars are fought in order not to change the government within an existing state, but to carve out a new state or quasi-state on behalf of only one particular ethnic group; or to cleanse the state of all but that group, usually for the benefit of a comparatively small elite within that group." The study implies that the ability of high technology militaries to intervene in preventing such atrocities may be limited, and recommends international reinforcement of the laws of war and imposition of international sanctions as possible approaches. Michael Marien, ed., World Futures and the United Nations (Bethesda, MD: World Future Society, 1995). Described as "an annotated guide to 250 recent publications," Marien's volume is a survey and compilation of futures study work sponsored by the United Nations, UN-related agencies, and nongovernmental organizations supporting UN objectives or focused on the future of the United Nations. The publication is co-sponsored and published by the World Future Society, the largest public membership association on futures study in the United States. Marien is editor of the World Future Society's monthly Future Survey, generally accepted as the most thorough guide to current futures literature. Independent Commission Graham T. Allison and Robert Blackwill, lead authors, America's National Interests (The Commission on America's National Interests, July 2000). The Commission on America's National Interests, consisting of 23 prominent Americans, receives funding from the Hauser Foundation and institutional support from Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, the Nixon Center, and RAND. Similar in concept to the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, this commission has greater academic representation among its principals, along with political leaders with specialized expertise in national security issues, such as former Senator Sam Nunn and Senator John McCain. For the purposes of their study, national interests are primarily defined in terms of foreign policy objectives. Six "cardinal challenges" for future American presidents are identified: (1) strengthen our strategic partnership with Japan and with European allies; (2) "facilitate China's entry onto the world stage without disruption;" (3) prevent loss of control over nuclear weapons and WMD proliferation; (4) prevent Russian authoritarianism or collapse; (5) maintain U.S. global leadership; and (6) marshal resources to promote freedom, peace, and prosperity throughout the world. The primary concern is that the "U.S. is in danger of losing its way" in foreign policy in the future security environment, becoming reactive and driven by the media and special interests. Political Candidate George W. Bush, "A Period of Consequences," speech delivered at The Citadel, Charleston, SC, September 23, 1999 (text from website). Texas Governor George W. Bush's speech at The Citadel is considered one of the significant statements of defense policy during the 1999-2000 presidential campaign. Outlining anticipated security threats of the 21st century, the speech emphasizes a greater need for homeland defense initiatives as well as a requirement for defense transformation in light of a coming "revolution in the technology of war." Governor Bush also articulated his view of a policy for selective engagement in order to reduce the operational tempo on the current military structure and reverse its negative effects on personnel retention and the lives of military families. Private Business www.stratfor.com, "Decade Forecast--Decade Through 2005," December 24, 1994 (remains currently available on website). The international affairs consulting and forecasting firm of Stratfor, Inc., better known as Stratfor.com, has been the most aggressive of web-based forecasters, providing daily assessments of world events and weekly assessments of political and economic conditions of various regions. Subscriptions to their breaking news-related forecasts are free and advertised as "delivering news at the speed of television with the depth of print." The company is heavily influenced by the work of George Friedman and Meredith Lebard, focusing on the political-military implications of international economic competition, and regionalization as a force opposing globalization. In addition to yearly forecasts and continuously updated information on international political and economic trends, Stratfor.com maintains a decade-long forecast, of which the 1994 version was the first. The 1994 version was included in the survey because of its relationship to the 1999 forecast, which is essentially an update. www.stratfor.com, "Stratfor's Decade Forecast 2000-2010: A New Era In A Traditional World," December 20, 1999 (remains currently available on website). Current updated ten-year forecast. Themes include the question of how other countries can limit American power and control, the search for equilibrium in the international system, and global economic desynchronization. Individual Contributions Paul Bracken, Fire in the East: The Rise of Asian Military Power and the Second Nuclear Age (New York: HarperCollins, 1999). Paul Bracken, a professor at Yale University, former researcher with the Hudson Institute, and author of an influential Cold War-era book on the command and control of nuclear forces, has served on defense advisory boards, such as the Chief of Naval Operations Executive Panel. He has been a frequent participant in future security workshops. Fire in the East presents his research on the rise of Asian militaries, emphasizing the development of antiaccess strategies, weapons of mass destruction, and unique applications of older military technologies. Ashton B. Carter and William J. Perry, Preventive Defense: A New National Security Strategy for America (Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, March 1999). A book-long version of the "preventive defense" recommendation of two prominent former defense officials, this volume has had significant influence on the current national security debate. Former-Secretary of Defense Perry and former-Undersecretary Carter identify four dominant future threats to American security: a potentially hostile China, a potentially authoritarian Russia, WMD proliferation and "loose nukes," and WMD terrorism on U.S. soil. Ralph Peters, Fighting for the Future: Will America Triumph (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 1999). A recently retired Army officer, Ralph Peters is a novelist and a prolific commentator on military issues, often presenting what would be considered contrarian views. Peters has frequently made presentations at numerous futures workshops, including those sponsored by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century and National Intelligence Council. His writings emphasize a future world of warriors in which high-technology military platforms may have limited applicability, but may require greater assets for human intelligence collection (HUMINT) and a reinvigorated military ethos. Fighting for the Future is a collection of interlocking essays previously published in military policy journals, such as Parameters, focused on the question of whether U.S. military forces are optimized for future threats.
Donald M. Snow, The Shape of the Future: World Politics in a New Century, 3d ed. (Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 1999). Donald M. Snow is currently a professor at the University of Alabama. Having held faculty positions at the U.S. Army War College, Naval War College and Air War College and published over twenty books on national security issues over his career, he has influenced strategic thinking over several generations of military officers. The Shape of the Future is a significant update of a work started in 1991 focusing on the political, economic, and military dimensions of the post-Cold War world, utilizing estimates and forecasts.
|