This is the first study of the strategic dimensions of common security which is set in a post-Cold War context. The book explores both common security and more recent additions to the debate - such as the related idea of 'cooperative security'. Separate chapters deal with conceptual issues and pivotal aspects of the contemporary security agenda: the amelioration of the security dilemma, cooperative defence planning, arms control, and peace-enforcement. The book will interest anyone concerned with the reshaping of the international landscape.

This is the first study of the strategic dimensions of common security which is set in a post-Cold War context. The book explores both common security and more recent additions to the debate - such as the related idea of 'cooperative security'. Separate chapters deal with conceptual issues and pivotal aspects of the contemporary security agenda: the amelioration of the security dilemma, cooperative defence planning, arms control, and peace-enforcement. The book will interest anyone concerned with the reshaping of the international landscape.

This edited volume explores and analyses strategic thinking, military reform and adaptation in an era of Asian growth, European austerity and US rebalancing. A significant shift in policy, strategy and military affairs is underway in both Asia and Europe, with the former gaining increasing prominence in the domain of global security. At the same time, the world’s powers are now faced with an array of diverse challenges. The resurgence of great power politics in both Europe and Asia, along with the long term threats of terrorism, piracy and sustained geopolitical instability has placed great strain on militaries and security institutions operating with constrained budgets and wary public support. The volume covers a wide range of case studies, including the transformation of China’s military in the 21st century, the internal and external challenges facing India, Russia’s military modernization program and the USA’s reassessment of its strategic interests. In doing so, the book provides the reader with the opportunity to conceptualize how strategic thinking, military reform, operational adaptation and technological integration have interacted with the challenges outlined above. With contributions by leading scholars and practitioners from Europe and Asia, this book provides a valuable contribution to the understanding of strategic and operational thinking and adjustment across the world. This book will be of much interest to students of military and strategic studies, security studies, defence studies, Asian politics, Russian politics, US foreign policy and IR in general.

On June 24, 2009, The Bush School of Government and Public Service and The Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs at Texas A & M University, and the U.S. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), conducted a conference on 'Leadership and Government Reform' in Washington, DC. Two panels discussed Leader Development in Schools of Public Affairs and Leadership, National Security, and 'Whole of Government' Reforms ... The panelists and authors reflected on the nature of external, internal, and transnational threats to U.S. security, and the need for changes in developing people, organizations, and institutions to more effectively, efficiently, and ethically improve the U.S. Government's capacity to address the need for change. The authors in this book share the belief of many in the international and public affairs community that the world is changing in fundamental ways, and our traditional models for understanding America's role do not appear to be working very well. A new era of reform is needed for this new age. In response, panelists in their detailed remarks and subsequent papers, offer suggestions to reform the United States' national security system to meet 21st century threats, while simultaneously developing the leaders who can implement a serious and broad-scale reform agenda.--

This collection of essays considers the evolution of American institutions and processes for forming and implementing US national security policy, and offers diverse policy prescriptions for reform to confront an evolving and uncertain security environment. Twelve renowned scholars and practitioners of US national security policy take up the question of whether the national security institutions we have are the ones we need to confront an uncertain future. Topics include a characterization of future threats to national security, organizational structure and leadership of national security bureaucracies, the role of the US Congress in national security policy making and oversight, and the importance of strategic planning within the national security enterprise. The book concludes with concrete recommendations for policy makers, most of which can be accomplished under the existing and enduring National Security Act. This book will be of much interest to students of US national security, US foreign policy, Cold War studies, public policy and Internationl Relations in general.

Prioritizing Security Sector Reform: A New U.S. Approach argues that security sector reform should be at the core of a new U.S. policy to strengthen the security sector capacity of countries where U.S. interests are at stake. Today's fragile environments feature a host of postconflict and postauthoritarian states and transitioning and new democracies that have at least one critical thing in common: Their security sectors are dysfunctional. Why these states cannot fulfill their most basic function-the protection of the population and their government-varies widely, but the underlying reason is the same. The security sector does not function because security sector institutions and forces are absent, ineffective, predatory, or illegitimate. In place of large, boots-on-the-ground interventions relying on expensive train and equip programs with only fleeting impact, Washington needs a new approach for engaging in fragile environments and a policy for prioritizing where it engages and for what purpose. The volume offers case studies to exemplify the context in which a new U.S. approach might be warranted, discusses other countries' experiences with security sector reform policies and examines how the United States should design and implement a security sector reform policy. Book jacket.

This edited collection is a timely and in-depth analysis of the EU’s efforts to bring coherency and strategy to its security policy actions. Despite a special European Council summit in December 2013 on defence, it is generally acknowledged that fifteen years since its inception the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) has yet to acquire a clear sense of purpose. This book investigates those areas where the EU has established actorness in the security and defence field and asks whether they might constitute the elements of an emergent more coherent EU strategy on security. Taking a critical view, the contributors map the EU’s strategic vision(s) across particular key regions where the EU has been active as a security actor, the strategic challenges that it has pinpointed alongside the opportunities and barriers posed by a multiplicity of actors, interests and priorities identified by both member states and EU actors. By doing this we demonstrate where gaps in strategic thinking lie, where the EU has been unable to achieve its aims, and offer recommendations concerning the EU’s future strategic direction. This book will be of much interest to students of European security, EU policy, strategic studies and IR in general.

The Project on National Security Reform submitted its 2-year study of the national security system, Forging a New Shield, to the President, President-elect, and Congress on November 26, 2008. Before the Project finalized the report's recommendations, its Vision Working Group tested the findings against a diverse set of scenarios to determine if the recommendations were robust and effective. This volume documents the scenario-testing process used by the Vision Working Group and includes the actual pre-reform and post-reform scenarios, and details many other scenario techniques used in the overall study. Results revealed that each of the five major findings improved the performance of the current national security system, but, on the whole, the findings concluded that the national security system was at risk of failure and needed serious reform. The work of the Vision Working Group has led to the formulation of an additional recommendation: The country must establish a mechanism to infuse greater foresight into the Executive Branch, and in particular the national security system. This proposed mechanism, named the Center for Strategic Analysis and Assessment, would exist and operate within the Executive Office of the President. This volume details the proposed architecture and operation of the Center.

The United States' failure to educate its students leaves them unprepared to compete and threatens the country's ability to thrive in a global economy and maintain its leadership role. This report notes that while the United States invests more in K-12 public education than many other developed countries, its students are ill prepared to compete with their global peers. According to the results of the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), an international assessment that measures the performance of 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics, and science every three years, U.S. students rank fourteenth in reading, twenty-fifth in math, and seventeenth in science compared to students in other industrialized countries. The lack of preparedness poses threats on five national security fronts: economic growth and competitiveness, physical safety, intellectual property, U.S. global awareness, and U.S. unity and cohesion, says the report. Too many young people are not employable in an increasingly high-skilled and global economy, and too many are not qualified to join the military because they are physically unfit, have criminal records, or have an inadequate level of education. The report proposes three overarching policy recommendations: implement educational expectations and assessments in subjects vital to protecting national security; make structural changes to provide students with good choices; and, launch a "national security readiness audit" to hold schools and policymakers accountable for results and to raise public awareness.

Failing and failed states are not able to provide equitable safety, security, and justice to their people through the traditional state mechanisms of police, judiciary, courts, and penitentiaries. In such situations, state mechanisms are ineffective, predatory, or absent. Security sector reform, commonly referred to as SSR, emerged as an activity in the 1990s in recognition of the changing international security environment and the limitations of reform approaches among interveners working in failing and failed states.2 SSR is a relatively new discipline in the context of peace and stability operations, whether these operations are United Nations (UN)-led or otherwise managed and supported. The coherence of strategies is improving, but the 1990s and 2000s have been witness to unsustainable and inconsistent security sector reforms in places like Kosovo, Liberia, and Haiti, among others. As time passes, the meta-narratives of legitimacy, accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness influence SSR activities within the international community of states involved with such reforms. This type of reform is multisector, multilateral, multifunctional, and multidonor in nature, similar to other lines of operation in security, governance and participation, humanitarian assistance and social well-being, economic stabilization and infrastructure, and justice and reconciliation. There is no one way to conduct SSR in post-conflict environments; and the various groups, organizations, and nations involved in SSR understand it based on their own policies, doctrines, and practices. As the environment in which interventions occur becomes more complex, so too must SSR in response to these changes. The SSR lens is not a comprehensive one, and SSR approaches vary greatly within the international community, as do meanings, definitions, policies, guidance, and implementation. Within the international community there have been successful attempts to standardize and integrate SSR through "combined funding mechanisms and enhanced collaboration among defense and development agencies."4 Of particular note are the efforts by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the UN. Most members of the international community use the progress achieved by the OECD and the UN, among others, to inform their own national efforts regarding this type of reform in international interventions. The standards and guidance provided through their research can be found in country policies in Canada, the United Kingdom(UK), and the United States, as well as international processes at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other international organizations. This is a significant step forward in improving the approach to reform and allowing for local capacities in host nations to be a part of such reforms. The notion that the West can intervene in places like Kosovo, Timor Leste, Liberia, and Haiti through a sort of neo-colonialism meted out through westernized policies and programs is nearly expunged from the imagination of the international community. A far better and more broadly accepted approach is to convene with host nations to build their own capacities to legitimize and sustain reform over the long haul. This paradigm shift permits the international community to move from perpetual leadership into a role of mentorship that enables a cleaner transition towards an exit strategy. The international community, however, remains on the upswing of the learning curve related to SSR. Many approaches have been attempted since the conflicts in the early 1990s in the former Yugoslavia.