The Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College publishes national security and strategic research and analysis which serves to influence policy debate and bridge the gap between Military and Academia.
The essays in this volume represent both a memorial and an analytical call to action. Mary Fitzgerald of the Hudson Institute was one of the most brilliant and vivacious practitioners of the study of the Russian and Chinese militaries, whose insights helped not just to put those fields of study on the map, but also to influence U.S. military thinking.
Turkmenistan, a key natural gas producer in Central Asia is undergoing a transition from the sultanistic regime of President Sapirmurat Niyazov to some other form of rule. It also is being courted by all the major powers in Central Asian politics. This monograph examines the domestic dynamics of succession here and in Central Asia and the entwined international rivalry or great game for energy access and influence over regional security in Central Asia.
In both cases, the interplay of domestic and foreign factors of security is critical to any grasp of the issues in Belarus and Ukraine and thus to sound policy analysis and policymaking in regard to them. This interplay is one of the defining features of the international security agenda that the U.S. Army and the U.S. Government grapple with on a daily basis.
The author assesses U.S. interests in Central Asia and the challenges to them. He recommends policies designed to meet those challenges to American policy in this increasingly more important area of the world.
Many factors have ensured that the Caucasus would become a source of significant international engagement and concern. While highlighting conflicting interests, the author explores areas of Russian and American shared priorities and mutual advantage that may provide a foundation for containing conflict and heading off further regional disintegration.
In this era of American predominance, alliances are more compelling than ever. The United States needs allies to generate capabilities that amplify its power, create a basis of legitimacy for the exercise of its power, avert impulses to counterbalance its power, and steer partners away from strategic apathy or excessive self-reliance.
The author uses a detailed assessment of the Russian experience in Afghanistan and Chechnya to draw important conclusions about asymmetric warfare. Even in this era of asymmetry, the U.S. Army exhibits a cultural preference for the "big war" paradigm. He suggests that the U.S. military in general, including the Army, needs a cultural transformation to master the challenge of asymmetry fully