National Defense Into the 21st Century: Defining the Issues
The U.S. Army War College, in cooperation with the Association of the United States Army (AUSA), the U.S. Naval War College, and the Atlantic Council of the United States, cosponsored a symposium in late F%ebruary 1997 to examine the topic, '1National Defense into the 21st Century: Defining the Issues.'1 The purpose of this symposium was to relate the national interests of the United States to its long-term military requirements and to define those challenges which will face the Department of Defense, as well as those issues most pertinent to each of the military services. This symposium was a sincere effort by individuals from the various services, the Army1s and the Navy1s premier professional military education institutions, AUSA, and the Atlantic Council to search for a common under- standing of the difficult issues facing all the services jointly and each of them individually. Over a period of two days, through four panels and three special addresses, the presenters and more than 100 attendees engaged in an enlightening and productive exchange of ideas and points of view. What follows is a report on the four individual panels and the comments of the Honorable John D. White, the Deputy Secretary of Defense; Major General Mark K. Hamilton, U.S. Army, Vice Director for F%orce Structure, Resources, and Assessment on the Joint Staff; and retired U.S. Army General Andrew J. Goodpaster, Chairman of the Atlantic Council of the United States. General Jack N. Merritt, U.S. Army, Retired, opened the symposium by describing its goals and agenda.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
21st century achieve air power American armed forces Arsenal Ship assessment asymmetric Atlantic Council balance Bosnia budget capabilities challenges civilian Cold War command Congress continue Conversino Department of Defense deterrence environment face fighting and winning force structure Force XXI Frostic full-spectrum dominance future going humanitarian infrastructure interwar period involved Johnsen Joint Strategy Review Joint Vision 2010 joint warfare land forces logistics maintain major Marine Corps military affairs military implications military power missile missions modernization National Defense Panel National Military Strategy National Security naval forces nuclear weapons operations options Persian Gulf War perspective political present preventive defense procurement programs Quadrennial Defense Review require Reserve Components revolution in military Secretary of Defense strategic attack strategic bombing Strategic Studies Institute symposium talk targets threats Tilford today's U.S. Air Force U.S. Army U.S. Military U.S. Navy United Vietnam warfare
Page 27 - Air power is an unusually seductive form of military strength. In part, because like modern courtship, it ap-pears to offer gratification without commitment.
Page 17 - Army will continue to be the only element of military power prepared to exercise direct, continuing, and comprehensive control over land, its resources and its people.
Page 2 - William T. Johnsen, Associate Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, in his paper, "The Future Roles of US Military Power and Their Implications...
Page 17 - Services is that land forces possess the power to exercise direct, continuing, and comprehensive control over land, its resources, and its peoples.
Page 4 - Component would retain primary responsibility for deterrence, for fighting and winning one MTW, and for conducting preventive defense tasks. The Reserve Components would have primary responsibility for deterring and, if necessary, fighting and winning in a second theater of war, should it develop.
Page 8 - At a general level, the review is being conducted by seven panels, each with its own subject area—strategy, force structure, modernization, readiness, infrastructure, human resources, and information oper-ations and intelligence.