Text Browser Navigation Bar: Main Site Navigation and Search | Current Page Navigation | Current Page Content
Professor JOHN F. (Jef) TROXELL is currently serving as Research Professor of National Security and Military Strategy, with the Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. In addition to his research activities with SSI, for the past thirteen years he has taught an elective course on the Economics of National Security and has widely lectured on related topics. He also teaches an elective on U.S. Defense Policy. He earned a Bachelor’s degree from the United States Military Academy in 1974 and a Master’s degree from the Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University in 1982. He is also a 1997 graduate of the U.S. Army War College. He served as an economics instructor with the Department of Social Sciences, at the United States Military Academy from 1982 to 1985, and prior to assuming his current position he was Professor of National Security Affairs with the Center for Strategic Leadership, serving as a member of the Strategic Decisionmaking Exercise team, and prior to that as the Director of National Security Studies, Department of National Security and Strategy, U.S. Army War College. He is also an adjunct faculty member of the Baltic Defense College.
During a thirty year career with the U.S. Army, higher-level assignments included, War Plans Division, Department of Army from 1990 to 1992, as a force planner for the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Requirements, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1996, and Chief, Engineer Plans Division, Combined Forces Command, Seoul, South Korea from 1997 to 1999. Other military assignments included command of the 3rd Engineer Battalion, 24th Infantry Division, and service with the 1st, 43rd, and 293rd Engineer Battalions. Colonel Troxell has published several book chapters to include ”Presidential Decision Directive-56: A Glass half Full,” in The Interagency and Counterinsurgency Warfare, “Sizing the Military in the Post-Cold War Era,” in United States Post-Cold War Defence Interests: A Review of the First Decade, and “Military Power and the Use of Force,” in the U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy, as well as articles in Parameters, Military Review, and with the Strategic Studies Institute.
“The Moldovan Military Academy: Transforming Officer Education,” Connection: The Quarterly Journal, Volume XI, Number 4, Fall 2012, Partnership for Peace Consortium, Garmisch, Germany.
“PDD-56: A Glass Half Full,” chapter in The Interagency and Counterinsurgency Warfare, Strategic Studies Institute, December 2007.
“Military Power and the Use of Force,” chapter in the U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy, Strategic Studies Institute, July 2004 and 2nd Edition, 2006.
“Sizing the Military Force in the Post-Cold War Era,” chapter in U.S. Defense Interests: The Post-Cold War Transition, Palgrave Press, April 2004.
“Sizing the Force for the 21st Century,” chapter in Revising the Two MTW Force Shaping Paradigm, a Strategic Alternatives Report from the Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA., April 2001.
“Force Planning and U.S. Defense Policy,” chapter in The Army War College Guide to Strategy, February 2001.
“Landmines: Why the Korea Exception Should Be the Rule,” Parameters: U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 1, Spring 2000.
Force Planning in an Era of Uncertainty: Two MRCs as a Force Sizing Framework, Strategic Studies Institute, Carlisle Barracks, PA, September 15, 1997.
“Soviet Civil Defense and the American Response,” Military Review, 1983.
China's Economic Rise presented on October 26.
*The above information may not be current. It was current at the time when the individual worked for SSI or was published by SSI.
Authored by Professor John F. Troxell.
The two MRC framework constitutes a logical scheme for organizing U.S. defense planning efforts. New approaches to planning scenarios and the operational concept for employing forces offer the potential for such adjustments concerning the "ways" of the strategic paradigm, while force thinning and modernization are two important categories for adjusting the affordability of the strategic "means."