Search results

Military expert Michael O'Hanlon examines America's major conflicts from the Civil War to Afghanistan. Now updated with to include the Revolutionary War and brief observations on three other conflicts in U. S. History, this unique book serves as an important treatment of America's military history at the strategic and theater of operations levels.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Preface -- Maps -- ONE. An Age of Fragile Peace and an Unsure America -- TWO. A Grand Strategy of Resolute Restraint -- THREE. Europe and Russia -- FOUR. The Pacific and China -- FIVE. Korea -- SIX. The Middle East and Central Command Theater -- SEVEN. The Other 4+1-Biological, Nuclear, Climatic, Digital, and Internal Dangers -- EIGHT. The American Armed Forces -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Index

In this new Brookings Marshall Paper, Michael O'Hanlon argues that now is the time for Western nations to negotiate a new security architecture for neutral countries in eastern Europe to stabilize the region and reduce the risks of war with Russia. He believes NATO expansion has gone far enough. The core concept of this new security architecture would be one of permanent neutrality. The countries in question collectively make a broken-up arc, from Europe's far north to its south: Finland and Sweden; Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus; Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan; and finally Cyprus plus Serbia, as well as possibly several other Balkan states. Discussion on the new framework should begin within NATO, followed by deliberation with the neutral countries themselves, and then formal negotiations with Russia.

In today's U.S. defense policy debates, big land wars are out. Drones, cyber weapons, special forces, and space weapons are in. Accordingly, Pentagon budget cuts have honed in on the army and ground forces: this, after the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems like an appealing idea. No one really wants American boots on the ground in bloody conflicts abroad. But it is not so easy to simply declare an end to messy land wars. A survey of the world's trouble spots suggests that land warfare has more of a future than many now seem to believe. In The Future of Land Warfare, Michael O'Hanlon offers an analysis of the future of the world's ground forces.

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Preface -- Chapter One: Introduction -- Chapter Two: Deficits, Debt, and the Decline of Great Powers -- Chapter Three: Deficits, Debt, and a New U.S. Defense Strategy -- Chapter Four: Tightening Belts at the Pentagon -- Chapter Five: A Smaller Ground Combat Force -- Chapter Six: Global Basing and Global Presence -- Chapter Seven: Equipping and Modernizing the Force -- Chapter Eight: Stress Testing the Force with China and Iran -- Chapter Nine: Intelligence, Homeland Security, Diplomacy, Democracy, and Development -- Chapter Ten: Conclusion -- Acknowledgments.

The incoming U.S. president inherits a raft of national security problems during a time of financial tumult and great uncertainty. Iraq, Afghanistan, the hunt for al Qaeda, border protection: the list is already endless yet still seems to grow by the day. And all the while, the national deficit grows. How should President Obama prioritize among the many competing demands for defense spending, homeland security investment, diplomacy, security assistance, and related measures? How much money will be needed? How much will be available? And how should it be allocated? These are the details that ca

In this new Brookings Marshall Paper, Michael O'Hanlon argues that now is the time for Western nations to negotiate a new security architecture for neutral countries in eastern Europe to stabilize the region and reduce the risks of war with Russia. He believes NATO expansion has gone far enough. The core concept of this new security architecture would be one of permanent neutrality. The countries in question collectively make a broken-up arc, from Europe's far north to its south: Finland and Sweden; Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus; Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan; and finally Cyprus plus Serbia, as well as possibly several other Balkan states. Discussion on the new framework should begin within NATO, followed by deliberation with the neutral countries themselves, and then formal negotiations with Russia.

In today's U.S. defense policy debates, big land wars are out. Drones, cyber weapons, special forces, and space weapons are in. Accordingly, Pentagon budget cuts have honed in on the army and ground forces: this, after the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, seems like an appealing idea. No one really wants American boots on the ground in bloody conflicts abroad. But it is not so easy to simply declare an end to messy land wars. A survey of the world's trouble spots suggests that land warfare has more of a future than many now seem to believe. In The Future of Land Warfare, Michael O'Hanlon offers an analysis of the future of the world's ground forces.

The White House's rhetoric during President Barack Obama's first term suggested he wanted to be more engaged and more transformative internationally than any U.S. president since John F. Kennedy. Expectations, then, were high. Consequently, Obama set himself up for the criticism-offered so eloquently by David Rothkopf (National Insecurity, September/October 2014) that, in practice, his foreign policy has been marred by a lack of interest. Adapted from the source document.