For decades since the formation of the defense establishment under the 1947 National Security Act, all U.S. cabinet departments, national security agencies, and military services involved in providing for the common defense have struggled to overcome differences in policy and strategy formulation, organizational cultures, and even basic terminology. Post-September 11, 2001, international systems, security environments, U.S. military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the greater Global War on Terrorism have confronted civilian policymakers and senior military officers with a complex, fluid battlefield which demands kinetic and counterinsurgency capabilities. This monograph addresses the security, stability, transition, and reconstruction missions that place the most pressure on interagency communication and coordination. The results from Kabul to Baghdad reveal that the interagency process is in need of reform and that a more robust effort to integrate and align civilian and military elements is a prerequisite for success. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1070/thumbnail.jpg
For decades since the formation of the defense establishment under the 1947 National Security Act, all U.S. cabinet departments, national security agencies, and military services involved in providing for the common defense have struggled to overcome differences in policy and strategy formulation, organizational cultures, and even basic terminology. Post-September 11, 2001, international systems, security environments, U.S. military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the greater Global War on Terrorism have confronted civilian policymakers and senior military officers with a complex, fluid battlefield which demands kinetic and counterinsurgency capabilities. This monograph addresses the security, stability, transition, and reconstruction missions that place the most pressure on interagency communication and coordination. The results from Kabul to Baghdad reveal that the interagency process is in need of reform and that a more robust effort to integrate and align civilian and military elements is a prerequisite for success. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1020/thumbnail.jpg
Looking ahead to 2025, what policies should future US administrations consider as appropriate responses to climate change, and what level of commitment should be devoted to addressing global climate change by the US government? To answer the key question, the project addressed the following secondary issues: Based on the best scientific evidence currently available, what will the most likely manifestations of global climate change be by 2025? This includes aggregate changes (surface temperatures, rising sea levels) as well as discrete changes (drought, flooding, disease, storms, heat waves). With respect to the latter, what are the probabilities that such events will be more (or less severe) than they are today? Based on the answers to the above, how politically salient will the issue of responding to global climate change be in 2025 (globally, by geographic region/location, by coalitions of similarly situated countries)? What low-probability, but potentially catastrophic events, may occur and how should these be taken into account by US policy? Responding to global climate change could be costly financially. However, there also could be positive spin-offs from addressing the consequences of global climate change. What may these positive spin-offs be (new technologies, energy independence, health, multilateral leadership, reputation gains)? ; The Long Range Analysis Group, National Intelligence Council (Director of National Intelligence)
Looking ahead to 2025, what policies should future US administrations consider as appropriate responses to climate change, and what level of commitment should be devoted to addressing global climate change by the US government? To answer the key question, the project addressed the following secondary issues: Based on the best scientific evidence currently available, what will the most likely manifestations of global climate change be by 2025? This includes aggregate changes (surface temperatures, rising sea levels) as well as discrete changes (drought, flooding, disease, storms, heat waves). With respect to the latter, what are the probabilities that such events will be more (or less severe) than they are today? Based on the answers to the above, how politically salient will the issue of responding to global climate change be in 2025 (globally, by geographic region/location, by coalitions of similarly situated countries)? What low-probability, but potentially catastrophic events, may occur and how should these be taken into account by US policy? Responding to global climate change could be costly financially. However, there also could be positive spin-offs from addressing the consequences of global climate change. What may these positive spin-offs be (new technologies, energy independence, health, multilateral leadership, reputation gains)? ; The Long Range Analysis Group, National Intelligence Council (Director of National Intelligence)
For decades since the formation of the defense establishment under the 1947 National Security Act, all U.S. cabinet departments, national security agencies, and military services involved in providing for the common defense have struggled to overcome differences in policy and strategy formulation, organizational cultures, and even basic terminology. Post-September 11, 2001, international systems, security environments, U.S. military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the greater Global War on Terrorism have confronted civilian policymakers and senior military officers with a complex, fluid battlefield which demands kinetic and counterinsurgency capabilities. This monograph addresses the security, stability, transition, and reconstruction missions that place the most pressure on interagency communication and coordination. The results from Kabul to Baghdad reveal that the interagency process is in need of reform and that a more robust effort to integrate and align civilian and military elements is a prerequisite for success. ; ".The Bush School and the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute sponsored a research symposium to outline interagency policy issues and craft recommendations. The symposium, entitled 'The interagency process in support and stability operations: the integration and alignment of military and civilian roles and missions,' was held on April 5-6, 2007, at Texas A&M University . the majority of the concerns, questions, and ideas discussed during the symposium are articulated and expanded upon in the following chapters" -- Preface. ; "December 2007." ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 575-588) ; Introduction -- I. Issues and challenges in support and stability operations -- 1. Challenges in support and stability operations: why each one is different -- 2. Presidential Decision Directive-56: a glass half full -- 3. A "Peace Corps with guns": can the military be a tool of development? -- Pt. II. Case studies and field experiences -- 4. The perils of planning: lessons from Afghanistan and Iraq -- 5. U.S. provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan, 2003-2006: obstacles to interagency cooperation -- 6. The interagency process in reconstruction of post-World II Japan -- 7. An alternative view: Sri Lanka's experience with an enduring insurgency -- Pt. III. Learning, innovation, and new initiatives -- 8. The exquisite problem of victory: measuring success in unconventional operations -- 9. The failure of incrementalism: interagency coordination challenges and responses -- 10. Interagency reform: an idea whose time has come -- 11. Strategic communication: interagency rhetoric and consistent interpretation -- Pt. IV. Leadership, education, training, and development for interagency operations -- 12. Bridging the gap: integrating civilian-military capabilities in security and reconstruction operations -- 13. Training, education, and leader development for the national security interagency -- 14. Leadership education and training for the interagency -- 15. The influence of stability operations on the Army profession and public management -- 16. Counterinsurgency doctrine FM 3-24 and Operation Iraqi Freedom: a bottom-up review -- 17. What is to be done?: aligning and integrating the interagency process in support and stability operations. ; For decades since the formation of the defense establishment under the 1947 National Security Act, all U.S. cabinet departments, national security agencies, and military services involved in providing for the common defense have struggled to overcome differences in policy and strategy formulation, organizational cultures, and even basic terminology. Post-September 11, 2001, international systems, security environments, U.S. military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the greater Global War on Terrorism have confronted civilian policymakers and senior military officers with a complex, fluid battlefield which demands kinetic and counterinsurgency capabilities. This monograph addresses the security, stability, transition, and reconstruction missions that place the most pressure on interagency communication and coordination. The results from Kabul to Baghdad reveal that the interagency process is in need of reform and that a more robust effort to integrate and align civilian and military elements is a prerequisite for success. ; Mode of access: Internet.
