The United States and the Transformation of African Security: The African Crisis Response Initiative and Beyond
Daniel W. Henk COL and Steven Metz Dr.
Helping Africans develop a capability to avoid or solve their region's security problems has reemerged recently as an important goal of American strategy, and the African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) is its centerpiece. Based on their testimony presented to the Africa Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations, this study by Dr. Steven Metz and Colonel Dan Henk of the U.S. Army War College examines the ACRI. Significantly, it does so by placing the ACRI in a wider, long-term strategic context.
"Enhancing" the Australian-U.S. Defense Relationship: A Guide to U.S. Policy
Thomas-Durell Young Dr.
Notwithstanding the end of U.S. basing in the Philippines, a revised defense framework with Japan, and starts and stops in Chinese-American military contacts, U.S. security relationships in the Pacific have enjoyed remarkable continuity since the end of the Cold War. The United States has promoted, thus far successfully, its role as the region s stabilizing power to justify at home and abroad a sustained Pacific rim presence and engagement. Whether this role has staying power for the coming decade is another matter. The frictions of basing in Japan and Korea, as well as the anticipated transformation in North Korea, are but two of a number of emerging challenges to the current U.S. posture. Concern about future directions of Chinese, or for that matter Japanese, military power might or might not be sufficient to smooth such frictions. The early 21st century could see a reordering of things. Out from the shadow of the Cold War, most Pacific nations are reassessing their defense postures. Australia is no exception. Among the closest of U.S. allies, Australia shares a number of concerns about potential change in the western Pacific balance. It is thus natural that the two countries look to their own cooperative defense relationship for hedges against an uncertain future. That is the genesis of the current study by Dr. Thomas-Durrell Young. Based on his extensive knowledge of Australian security affairs and recent in-country field work, he examines prospects for enhancing existing bilateral security ties. He does so with a sense for the feasible, offering both guiding principles and practicable approaches that take careful account of the interests of both nations.
NATO Enlargement and the Baltic States: What Can the Great Powers Do?
Stephen J. Blank Dr.
NATO's enlargement has brought it to the borders of the Baltic states who covet membership in NATO. However, admitting them into NATO is one of the most difficult problems for the Alliance because of Russia's unconditional opposition to such action and because of NATO's own internal divisions on this issue. Nonetheless, a new regime or system of security for the entire Baltic region must now be on the U.S. and European agenda. The key players in such a process are Russia, Germany, and the United States. Their actions will determine the limits of the possible in constructing Baltic security for the foreseeable future. Dr. Stephen Blank presents a detailed and extensive analysis of these three governments' views on Baltic and European security. Their views on regional security are materially shaped by and influence their larger views on their mutual relations and policy towards Europe. Their views also demonstrate the complexity of the issues involved in constructing Baltic, not to mention European, security. But because NATO enlargement is the most serious foreign policy and defense issue before Congress now, such an analysis can illuminate much of what is happening in the NATO enlargement process and why it has taken its current shape.
The United States and Russia into the 21st Century
R. Craig Nation Dr. and Michael McFaul Dr.
In late April 1997, the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute hosted its Eighth Annual Strategy Conference. The topic for this year's conference was Russia's Future as a World Power. The concluding panel for this conference, The United States and Russia into the 21st Century, included the following two papers. In the first essay, Beyond the Cold War: Change and Continuity in U.S.-Russian Relations, Dr. R. Craig Nation argues that, for the United States, the primary challenge is to adjust to a post-Cold War world where it is difficult to justify traditional exercises of power in the absence of any imminent threat. But, for the United States, the trauma of readjustment has been mostly confined to the American defense industry and the military services themselves; and the adjustments that are being undertaken have occurred in the midst of an economy enjoying an exceptionally long and steady growth. For Russia, however, the demise of the Soviet Union was a event of unparalleled historical precedent. In the span of a few years, what was once an awesome empire, one whose interests were defended by armed forces of tremendous size and quality, fractured. Left was a truncated state, undergoing massive economic upheaval. With the exception of its armed forces and nuclear capabilities, Russia poses dangers to only a very few immediate neighbors. Dr. Nation traces the attempts of both states to come to terms with Russia's new status and to establish a new relationship. He concludes that neither a purely cooperative nor inevitably antagonistic pattern will characterize their turn-of-the- century interaction. Instead, we should anticipate a hybrid model as Russia defines its national interests through its own prism.
In the second essay, American Policy Towards Russia: Framework for Analysis and Guide to Action, Dr. Michael McFaul maintains that, while Russia may be temporarily in decline, its sheer size, natural resources, educated populace, and strategic location
Force Planning in an Era of Uncertainty: Two MRCs as a Force Sizing Framework
John F. Troxell Professor
Colonel John F. Troxell first asserts that there is a false dichotomy being drawn between capabilities-based and threat-based force planning. He argues that post-Cold War force planning must be founded on a logical integration of threat- and capabilities-based planning methodologies. He then addresses the issue of the two Major Regional Contingency (MRC) force-sizing paradigm. After reviewing all the arguments made against that paradigm, Colonel Troxell concludes that in a world characterized by uncertainty and regional instability, in which the United States has global security interests and a unique leadership role, the two MRC framework constitutes a logical scheme for organizing U.S. defense planning efforts. That framework is also flexible enough to accommodate adjustments to the U.S. defense establishment, both today and for the immediate future. 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." At some point, changes in the international security environment will demand significantly different approaches to shaping U.S. forces. But, given the QDR's ringing endorsement of the two MRC construct, that change will be a 21st, rather than a 20th, century undertaking.
Strategic Planning and the Drug Threat
William W. Mendel COL (RET) and Murl D. Munger COL (RET)
The primary purpose of this publication is to show how the principles and techniques of strategic and operational planning can be applied to the supply reduction side of our national effort to curb the trafficking of illicit drugs. An earlier version was published in 1991 which introduced campaign planning methodology as a means to help bridge the gap existing between the policy and strategy documents of higher echelons and the tactical plans developed at the field level. These campaign planning principles, formats, and examples of operational level techniques have been retained and updated for use as models for current interagency actions. This expanded edition provides a more detailed overview of the drug problem in the opening chapter and adds a new chapter devoted to strategy--what are the key ingredients and how is an effective strategy formulated? The United States is at a critical juncture in its campaign to eliminate the rampant drug problem. Past gains are in danger of being lost. Recent trends suggest a resurgence in illicit drug use and that younger and younger Americans are falling prey to the drug pusher.
The Challenge of Haiti's Future: Report on the Conference Sponsored by U.S. Army War College, Georgetown University, and the Inter-American Dialogue
Max G. Manwaring Dr., Donald E. Schulz Dr., Robert Maguire Dr., and Peter Hakim Dr.
This Special Report contains an account of a conference on "The Challenge of Haiti's Future," sponsored by the U.S. Army War College, Georgetown University, and the Inter-American Dialogue, and held on February 10-11, 1997, on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC. The participants at the meeting addressed three broad issues: social and economic advance in Haiti, achieving democracy and the rule of law, and the role of the United States and the international community in Haiti. Conferees set forth numerous specific observations and policy recommendations. Recurring themes centered on the continuing need for almost universal reforms; the need to manage expectations among all actors, both Haitian and foreign; the need to assist Haitians to participate more effectively in political and economic decision making processes; and the need for organized and integrated, long-term, outside involvement, and support for sustainable development. Haiti's nascent and fragile democracy remains at risk. The United States and the international community have critical choices to make about the nature, extent, and longevity of their efforts in the country. On the one hand, the task of fostering a stable government, economic growth, and domestic security faces daunting obstacles, perhaps not ever fully amenable to foreign resolution. On the other, the cost of giving up includes the prospect of a breakdown of public order and possible reversion to the state of affairs that triggered intervention in the first place. The conference report which follows makes clear just how difficult a problem the situation in Haiti poses for decision makers in and out of that country.
Traditional Military Thinking and the Defensive Strategy of China
Li Jijun Lieutenant General and Earl H. Tilford Dr.
On July 15, 1997, the U.S. Army War College hosted a delegation from the Chinese Academy of Military Science. During the delegation's visit, Academy representatives and members of the U.S. Army War College faculty engaged in discussions ranging from professional military education to national security and military strategy. The highlight of the visit, however, was a speech delivered to the U.S. Army War College Corresponding Studies Class of 1997 by the Chinese delegation's leader, Lieutenant General Li Jijun. As relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China continue to improve, elements of the People's Liberation Army have demonstrated their sincere willingness to work toward better professional relationships with their U.S. military counterparts. In his address, General Li set the cornerstone for a future relationship between the Academy of Military Science and the U.S. Army War College that will further those goals. General Li graciously agreed to the publication of his address.
Syria and the Peace: A Good Chance Missed
Helena Cobban Dr.
One of the more dismaying aspects of the current peace process has been the failure of Syria and Israel to make a deal. According to Christian Science Monitor correspondent Helena Cobban, these two long-standing foes came very close to composing their decades-old quarrel. The Syrian and Israeli leaders persevered to overcome extraordinary obstacles, but in the end failed. A terrible setback, says Cobban, because so much hard negotiating work had been done up to the very last moment when the whole carefully constructed edifice of peace drifted away.
Two Perspectives on Interventions and Humanitarian Operations
Earl H. Tilford Dr., David Tucker Dr., and Robert B. Oakley AMB
A recent symposium cosponsored by the Strategic Studies Institute and the University of Kentucky's Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce examined that grey area between war and peace, between intervention in support of national interests and humanitarian operations which, while necessary and appropriate, also put Americans in danger while consuming precious and ever scarcer resources. The following two papers from that symposium complement each other well. In the first, a revised after action report on his experiences in Somalia, Ambassador Robert B. Oakley, a career foreign service officer who served as Special Envoy to Somalia during both the present and previous administrations, provides an honest and compelling look at that controversial operation. In the second paper, Dr. David Tucker, who serves on the staff of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, dissects the arguments to develop criteria which might be used for and against engagement in humanitarian operations in an attempt to guide U.S. policymakers. Ambassador Oakley and Dr. Tucker, while approaching their subjects in two very different ways, come to the same general conclusion. They both agree that the United States, as a great power, will be engaged in intervention operations of all kinds all over the world. Ambassador Oakley contends that much that was learned from our efforts in Somalia proved beneficial in later operations, specifically in Haiti and Bosnia. Dr. Tucker, while suggesting guidelines that may be useful in determining when, where, and how to commit American military and civilian personnel to relief and humanitarian operations, also makes the point that even the best criteria can promote, but not guarantee, successful outcomes. One thing is certain, these kinds of operations are with us to stay.
U.S. National Security: Beyond the Cold War
Robert Ellsworth AMB, Morton H. Halperin Dr., David Jablonsky Dr., and Lawrence Korb Dr.
U.S. national security is a subject that has been under intense scrutiny since the end of the Cold War. What constitutes such security for the United States as this country approaches the new century? Are the ends, ways, and means of our national security and national military strategies sufficient to provide for the nation's future? And above all, as this country celebrates the 50th anniversary of the National Security Act of 1947, are the institutions that resulted from that act still sufficient for the post-Cold War era?
With these questions in mind, the Strategic Studies Institute and Dickinson College's Clarke Center co-sponsored the series of lectures on American national security after the Cold War which are contained in this volume. The lectures take four different, yet complementary, perspectives. Professor Ronald Steel reminds us of the intellectual revolution embodied in the act that moved America from the concept of "defense" to one of "national security" and relates this concept to our attempts to define post-Cold War national security interests. Dr. Lawrence Korb reviews the evolution in our national security establishment since the 1947 act. Dr. Morton Halperin's focus is the continuing tension between secrecy in the name of national security and the openness required in a democratic society, with a commentary on continuing threats to civil liberties. In the concluding essay, Ambassador Robert Ellsworth surveys the key strategic challenges facing the United States as we enter the 21st century.
Assessing the Costs of Failure
Lawrence R. Velte Mr., Shibley Telhami Prof., and Stephen C. Pelletiere Dr.
As of mid-1997, the fate of the Arab-Israeli peace process is dangerously uncertain. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's decision to begin work on a new Jewish settlement in Jerusalem has so enraged Palestinians that they have effectively walked out of the negotiations. President Clinton has called on his special envoy, Dennis Ross, to exert every effort to get the Palestinians to return. Meanwhile, elements opposed to the peace process from within the Israeli political establishment have pressured the Prime Minister to halt or even reverse the steps taken to date. Given these current setbacks, it is worthwhile to review what hangs in the balance for U.S. interests in the Middle East. How important is success in the peace process? What are the implications should the peace talks fail? To examine these questions, the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) of the U.S. Army War College joined with Villanova University's Center for Arab and Islamic Studies to cosponsor a conference on the peace process, at Villanova, in December 1996. The conference, organized by Dr. Anne Lesch of Villanova and SSI's Dr. Stephen Pelletiere, brought together six experts on the Middle East, each of whom discussed a different aspect of the crisis. The two papers presented here are particularly timely, as the authors examine the likely effects of breakdown, or breakthrough, on America's broader regional interests, extending in particular to the Persian Gulf. As U.S. policies with respect to the Gulf and the Arab-Israeli peace process come under increasing stress, these authors elaborate linkages between them. They also make clear that the outcomes will have profound implications for U.S. security commitments and, potentially, future missions and deployments.
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The United States, Mexico, and the Agony of National Security
Donald E. Schulz Dr.
The North American Free Trade Association has accelerated its interdependence with the U.S. economy. At the same time, Mexico has been experiencing great political, economic, and social disruption, and has become the territory of origin or transit of most of the illegal drugs entering the United States. The growing interpenetration and interdependence of the two countries means that this turmoil is more likely than ever to spill over the border. Whether in the form of economic interaction, illegal immigration, or the spread of corruption and violence, what happens in Mexico increasingly affects our own national interests. By redefining U.S.-Mexican national security in nontraditional terms, the author has gone a long way towards helping us comprehend the implications of what has been happening. Equally important, he offers practical suggestions as to how U.S. leaders should respond—and not respond—to these challenges.
Command in NATO After the Cold War: Alliance, National, and Multinational Consideration
Thomas-Durell Young Dr.
The publication of this compendium could not be more timely as a contribution to the debate which continues in NATO capitals. NATO is an alliance based on consensus. It is also the most effective military alliance in history; this is largely due to the existence of its integrated and multinational command structure. That command structure, the cement of the Alliance as it were, derives from the mutual obligations contained in Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty. This contractual obligation, which does not exist for the other missions which have arisen since 1990, means that the defense of NATO territory must be the basis of any restructuring. If we were to move away from this and thus weaken the command structure, even with the best intentions, then it is my firm conviction that we would do serious harm to the Alliance and its future. On the other hand, a modified command structure, still based on the Article V contractual obligation, provides a firm basis, as well as flexibility, versatility, and availability for any non- contractual, namely out-of-area, requirement. Command structures do not exist of their own accord. They come into being, change, and develop, to permit commanders at the appropriate level, from top to bottom, to orchestrate the application of military force at sea, in the air, and on land. There is, however, a limit to which one can impose responsibilities on commanders, who after all are personally responsible for the conduct of operations, and a limit to the amount of specialization and detail with which they can cope. This is why we have hierarchical command structures with each commander dealing with the appropriate level of competence. It is why at certain levels command should be joint and at others purely functional. How many levels of command are needed will be dictated by the operations factors of time, forces, and space.
From Madrid to Brussels: Perspectives on NATO Enlargement
Stephen J. Blank Dr.
NATO's enlargement will be perhaps the most important defense and foreign policy issue of 1997. Certainly, its impact will exert a decisive influence on the future evolution of European security and the institutions that comprise it. This process raises a host of serious issues concerning Europe, not the least being the questions of what can or will be done for those states who are not members of NATO or will not be able to enter in the first round of enlargement. Other issues include the impact of enlargement on NATO as an alliance system, on U.S. foreign and defense policy, and on the European neutrals. With these questions in mind, the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) convened a roundtable in Washington on January 27, 1997. The chapters in this report originally were presented at that roundtable. In publishing these papers SSI and CSIS offer the substantive contributions of six expert authors to the growing public debate over NATO enlargement.
National Defense into the 21st Century: Defining the Issues
Earl H. Tilford Dr.
In March 1996, Colonel Jim Blundell of the Association of the United States Army's Institute for Land Warfare and Dr. Earl H. Tilford, Jr., of the U. S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute envisioned a symposium that would bring all the services together for an open and honest meeting aimed at defining the complex issues that will face the services individually and the Department of Defense corporately during the Joint Strategy Review and Quadrennial Defense Review process. This symposium brought together men and women, soldiers, airmen, marines, and civilians from government, industry, academia, and the media to speak and, more importantly, to listen. Every speaker, even those who were clearly the specified advocates for their respective services, emphasized both the need for the current QDR and the absolute conclusion that defending the United States is and will remain a joint endeavor. The honest and forthright exchange of ideas, concepts, and opinions furthered the process and, quite possibly, pushed the Department of Defense closer to a successful QDR. The QDR is an event of extreme importance for the Department of Defense, the individual services, and for the American people. What is at stake is the future capability of the nation's military. Now is the time to face the truth, to speak the truth, and to put aside parochial interest so that the interests of us all, the preservation and extension of freedom, may endure into the coming millennium
The Crisis in the Russian Economy
Vitaly V. Shlykov Dr.
Retired Soviet Army Colonel Vitaly Shlykov presents a brutally honest appraisal of the harsh realities that are a part of today's Russia. This report was presented at the Army War College's Eighth Annual Strategy Conference, "Russia's Future as a World Power," held at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, April 22-24, 1997. Colonel Shlykov's paper is even more sobering when one considers that the October Revolution of 1917 began in the bread lines of Petrograd and Moscow.
The Evolution in Military Affairs: Shaping the Future U.S. Armed Forces
Douglas C. Lovelace Professor
Professor Douglas Lovelace articulates the exigent need to begin preparing the U.S. armed forces for the international security environment which will succeed the post-Cold War era. He defines national security interests, describes the future international security environment, identifies derivative future national security objectives and strategic concepts, and discerns the military capabilities that will be required in the early 21st century. Professor Lovelace neither proposes nor allows for a "revolution in military affairs," but contends that the U.S. military necessarily must evolve into a 21st century force. He considers the force capabilities suggested by Joint Vision 2010 as a necessary step in this evolutionary process but carries the evolution further into the 21st century. While the process he foresees is evolutionary, the nature of the armed forces, if they come to fruition, would be distinctly different in roles, structure, doctrine, and operational employment concepts than those we know today. To be sure, his conclusions and recommendations ironically will seem revolutionary to many, despite their derivation from identifiable trends in the international security environment.
The Russian Military in the 21st Century
Alexei G. Arbatov Dr.
In April 1997, the U.S. Army War College held its Eighth Annual Strategy Conference, the topic of which was "Russia's Future as a World Power." Most of the speakers discussed various aspects of the many crises besetting Russia, and there were differing views on whether Russia would be able to surmount those crises and make the transition to a politically stable democracy and a market economy. Dr. Arbatov provides a very candid appraisal of Russia's current military capabilities. But more importantly, he also outlines a vision for the future of the Russian military. His vision is set within a well-reasoned strategic context and takes into consideration a domestic economic and political environment that includes a free market economy and the further development of constitutional democracy.
Challenges and Options in the Caucasus and Central Asia
Pavel K. Baev Dr.
In April 1997, the U.S. Army War College held its Eighth Annual Strategy Conference. This year's topic was "Russia's Future as a World Power." Dr. Pavel K. Baev, a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo, Norway, discusses the disintegration of order along Russia's southern border. Following a brief overview of the evolution of Russian policies in the Caucasus and Central Asia in the immediate post-Soviet period, Dr. Baev evaluates the impact of the Chechen war and then analyzes the growing role that petroleum plays in the political equation. He concludes that the growth of nationalism among the states in the Caucasus and Central Asia has combined with the decline in capability of the Russian Army to encourage many of the states to seek greater autonomy from Russian influence. While Russia is in strategic retreat, the political forces acting upon President Yeltsin are so intense as to increase the possibility that hasty and unwise decisions may be forthcoming. Turbulence in the so-called near abroad and political weakness at home plagued Russia at the turn of the century, forcing Tsar Nicholas II to turn to his more conservative and autocratic advisors for advice and policy. A fledgling move toward democratization was weakened even before Russia found itself embroiled in World War I. As this century turns, the course of Russian democracy again hinges, to a degree, on events on Russia's periphery. This makes Professor Baev's analysis that much more germane to those concerned with Russia's future.
The Future Roles of U.S. Military Power and Their Implications
William T. Johnsen Dr.
As the daily headlines attest, the Department of Defense is in the midst of a Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Charged by Congress, the Department of Defense is examining a broad range of issues concerning U.S. military policy and strategy (inter alia, future national defense strategy, the force structure necessary to implement that strategy, the affects of technology on force structure, and the anticipated roles and missions of the Reserve Components in executing the defense strategy) that will have far-reaching consequences for the United States. Before these crucial issues are addressed, however, a more fundamental question needs to be explored: what does the United States want its military to do? In other words, what are the future roles of the U.S. military? Only after this issue has been answered can the Department of Defense turn to the other important issues posed by Congress. Dr. William T. Johnsen tackles this question. In brief, he concludes that the U.S. military will continue to perform its traditional roles: deterrence, reassurance, compellence, and support to the nation. The method and manner of carrying out those roles, however, will change; in some cases substantially. The implications of these adapted roles will be considerable. More importantly, Dr. Johnsen also examines the emerging role of preventive defense and its potentially profound consequences for the U.S. military. The debates carried out within and about the QDR will shape the security policy of the United States well into the 21st Century.
Why Russian Policy is Failing in Asia
Stephen J. Blank Dr.
Since its inception as a state, Russia has been both a European and an Asian power. Although Russia today, as was true during much of its history, is torn by an identity crisis over where it belongs, its elites have never renounced Russia's vital interests in Asia and the belief that it should be recognized as a great power there. However, that belief and Moscow's ability to sustain it are now under threat, due, as Dr. Stephen Blank's thorough analysis informs us, to the ongoing failures of Russian policymakers to come to grips with changed Russian and Asian realities. At the same time, this aspect of Russian policy has been neglected in American assessments of Russia. This is a serious shortcoming, because, in Dr. Blank's view, Russia's Asian policies, viewed in their full breadth, are important signs of present and future trends concerning its behavior at home and in the wider world. Those policies are also significant as Asia's importance in world affairs rises. We ignore the threatening situation facing Russia, and Moscow's failure to adjust to those threats, only at our own peril. The growing concern over Russian arms transfers to China, a subject addressed in the study, is only one sign of unexpected negative trends that might work against U.S. interests if we continue to neglect Asian aspects of Russia's global behavior and policy.
Strategic Horizons: The Military Implications of Alternative Futures
Steven Metz Dr.
A year ago the Chief of Staff of the Army initiated the Army After Next Project (AANP) as a means of stimulating constructive thinking about the Army's future throughout the service. AANP has quickly developed into a primary vehicle for long-range planning. Under the leadership of the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), the AANP has conducted an ambitious program of studies, symposia and workshops, culminating in a Winter War Game and Senior Seminar held at Carlisle, January 27-February 6, 1997. A key line of initial inquiry for us has been to forecast the nature of the future security environment in which the Army will operate. That is the task Dr. Steven Metz set for himself in this monograph. In the pages that follow he propounds "currents of change" that will determine the future and sketches a series of plausible future security systems. Each system is characterized by the forms of conflict that will dominate it, the major strategic issues the United States might face, and the resulting military implications. While Dr. Metz's analysis leads to observations certain to be controversial, he illustrates quite clearly the primacy that environmental context will have in shaping our national security outlook and military strategy. Thus, Dr. Metz's observations on trends and systems warrant careful consideration as national policymakers and the Army's leaders build the military force of the future.
The Dynamics of Russian Weapon Sales to China
Stephen J. Blank Dr.
Russia has recently sold or transferred many military weapons or technologies to China. Russian state policy has also officially joined with China in a relationship described as a strategic cooperative partnership. Some Russian diplomats also say that there is virtually complete identity with China on all issues of Asian and global security. Dr. Stephen Blank examines this relationship carefully for what it reveals about both states' international security policies.
Donald E. Schulz Dr.
Recent developments in Haiti including political assassinations attributed to both former Haitian military personnel and members of President Preval's presidential security unit have once again thrust that troubled country into the international spotlight. In the process, questions have been raised about the viability of the nascent Haitian democracy and the political stability on which it rests. In turn, that has led to questions about the length and nature of the international commitment, including that of the United States. Thus it was that in September 1996 Dr. Donald E. Schulz, the author of two previous Strategic Studies Institute reports on Haiti (Reconciling the Irreconcilable: The Troubled Outlook for U.S. Policy Toward Haiti, coauthored with Gabriel Marcella, 1994; and Whither Haiti?, 1996), spent a week in country gathering information about the current situation and the prospects for the future. During that visit, he spoke with numerous people, including U.S., Haitian and other nationals, on a not-for-attribution basis. This report is the product of those conversations, his personal observations of what he saw, and his continuing research on Haiti.
Printing is not supported at the primary Gallery Thumbnail page. Please first navigate to a specific Image before printing.