Books, Monographs & Collaborative Studies

Printing is not supported at the primary Gallery Thumbnail page. Please first navigate to a specific Image before printing.

Switch View to Grid View Slideshow

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.
Haiti Update

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.
Tacit Acceptance and Watchful Eyes: Beijing's Views about the U.S.-ROK Alliance

Fei-Ling Wang Dr.

In October 1995, the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute and the Institute for Far Eastern Studies of Kyungnam University, in partnership with the Defense Nuclear Agency and The Korea Society, hosted in Seoul, Korea, an international workshop on the U.S.-ROK Alliance. For nearly a half century, the security alliance between the ROK and the United States has deterred aggression, helped assure stability in Northeast Asia, and supported the ROK's political and economic emergence as one of the advanced democratic industrial countries of the world.

In this monograph, Professor Wang Fei-ling examines the future of the alliance from China's perspective. He suggests that China's current preoccupation with its domestic agenda and relatively conservative foreign policy seek to maintain the status quo in Northeast Asia. And that status quo makes even continued U.S. military presence desirable in the context of a divided Korea because it buttresses stability and inhibits militarism in Japan. But an American presence that grows, takes on the flavor of containment, or emphasizes human rights and the enlargement of democracy threatens Chinese security interests. Overall, concern that Northeast Asia is on the verge of significant transformation in economics, governments, and balance of power relationships lends an inevitable duality to Chinese attitudes toward the Washington-Seoul relationship. Dr. Wang's comments provide insight into China's probable reaction to various scenarios of change possible in the next decade. The Sino-American relationship will become increasingly important, and Dr. Wang's warning that a sharp shift in China's Korea policy is possible has significant implications for U.S. interests.
The Chemical Weapons Convention: Strategic Implications for the United States

Frederick J. Vogel Mr.

On January 13, 1993, in Paris, 130 countries signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to ban the entire class of chemical weapons. Many of those nations have since ratified it. In this country, debate continues on the strategic implications of the convention, as drafted, and whether it is in the U.S. national security interest. Once gain, that debate comes before the Senate for ratification consideration in 1997. Frederick Vogel explores the historical, moral, and legal aspects of chemical warfare, and the strategic implications of the convention, including operational, policy, constitutional, and industrial impact for the United States. He concludes that, although "imperfect," the convention will contribute to U.S. national security.
The Peace process, Phase One: Past Accomplishments, Future Concerns

Stephen C. Pelletiere Dr.

As a result of a conference on the peace process in the Middle East, co-hosted by the Strategic Studies Institute and North Georgia College in March 1996, the authors discussed the developing crisis in that area. They have analyzed three crucial areas of relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors--Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. In these three essays, the authors analyze several key aspects of what can be considered the first phase of the Mideast Peace Process (the time from the 1991 Madrid Conference to the 1996 Israeli election). They remind us that despite recent renewed progress on the Israeli-Palestinian agenda, the peace process has a long and difficult road ahead.
World View: The 1997 Strategic Assessment from the Strategic Studies Institute

Earl H. Tilford Dr.

In December of each year the analysts at the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) look to the year ahead to assess the strategic equation for their particular areas of interest. This is part of an effort to focus our priorities both corporately as well as individually. As they address those issues and factors that will affect U.S. national security strategy over the next 12-18 months, our analysts are also forced to think about the next decade. The strategic context in 1997 will be quite similar to that of 1996 in that it remains complex and uncertain. This year, however, the way we assess the world of the 21st century is even more important because the Army, along with the other services, is engaged in the congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Beyond the QDR, our conceptions of the future have implications not only for Force XXI and Army XXI, but also for the kind of Army that will serve the nation when Army XXI systems near obsolescence in 15-20 years. Getting the strategic context about right is important because the Army After Next, although highly capable, will also be small by comparison to those forces of only a few years past. Furthermore, decisions made in 1997 as to weapons development and force structure will emerge in the Army of 2010-2015.
Asian Security to the Year 2000

Dianne L. Smith LTC, Abraham Kim Mr., Marc Jason Gilbert Prof., and Perry L. Wood Mr.

In January 1996, the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) hosted a conference on "Asian Security to the Year 2000." No region of the world has greater potential for expanded influence on American interests. This compendium of papers from the conference examines the security policies being pursued by many of the key Asian actors--China, the Koreas, Pakistan, and the nations of Southeast Asia, particularly those in ASEAN. The contributors to this volume paint the picture of a dynamic and diverse Asia on the verge of the new century. Each author identifies the critical issues which frame both challenges and opportunities for U.S. foreign, economic, and security policies.
Force, Statecraft and German Unity: The Struggle to Adapt Institutions and Practices

Thomas-Durell Young Dr.

One can make two general observations concerning Bonn's ongoing attempt to adapt institutions and practices. First, confusion in German policy making is clearly a manifestation of officials largely navigating in a little-known policy milieu. Realpolitik, let alone Machtpolitik (either as mere terms, let alone as concepts) are neither freely used in "polite" political discord in Germany, nor widely contemplated. As a result of a wide-spread political culture governed by self-restraint, confronting difficult issues in their proper context has made decision making frequently complicated and confusing to outside observers. What we are presently witnessing is a learning period in German external policy making, with all of its attendant errors. It is an open question how long this educational process will last or if the German body politic is prepared for such straight forward discussion.

Second, perturbations in policy formation are partly a result of Bonn's approach to foreign and security policies which remains exclusively defined and expressed by the German government in the context of the North Atlantic Alliance and the emerging European Security and Defense Identity. Indeed, there is no sizeable political bloc in the Federal Republic that argues otherwise. In consequence, there is no evidence that Bonn is prepared to consider adopting a national approach to national security.

In sum, German statecraft has the unenviable task of legitimizing its new national status, not only before its allies and neighbors, but also before a skeptical German public. Given the history of statecraft in a unified Germany, this will surely be a difficult and potentially time- consuming process. To the Federal Republic's credit, one must recall that, unlike previous historical experiences, contemporary German democratic traditions and institutions are universally accepted in Germany, and they have been tested.
The ASEAN Regional Forum: Asian Security without an American Umbrella

Larry M. Wortzel Dr.

U.S. Asian policy today is a curious blend of seemingly firm bilateral commitments and occasionally startling ambiguities. The latter, while preserving American flexibility, run the risk of signaling weakness when friends and potential adversaries probe for clarity of purpose. This American "inscrutability" in Asia is all the more troubling in a region lacking a strong web of multilateral institutions, as exists across the North Atlantic. Indeed, if the United States is to maintain regional stability in Asia, Colonel Larry Wortzel, the U.S. Army attaché in Beijing, argues, it must make multilateral dialogues like the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum a major tenet of its Asian policy. The problems that need to be addressed by the United States in conjunction with its Asian friends, allies and potential foes—proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, ethnic conflict, territorial issues, trade relations, and the future of democracy throughout the region—are every bit as important to U.S. security in the Asian context as they are in Europe, where they receive intensive, continuous, multilateral scrutiny. Colonel Wortzel calls our attention to the nascent ASEAN Regional Forum and causes us to consider its potential to enable a highly diverse group of nations to enhance their mutual understanding, stability, and security as they enter the 21st century.
Managing Strains in the Coalition: What to Do About Saddam?

Stephen C. Pelletiere Dr.

For 5 years U.S. policy has managed to steer a coalition of states which share broad interests in regional stability and free trade. Yet below these common interests, the United States has walked a tightrope stretched between competing objectives vis-à-vis Iraq, e.g., undermining Saddam while preserving Iraq as a counterweight to Iran; protecting the Kurds while not promoting their independence. Time, however, has a habit of eroding international coalitions and exposing seams in the details of policy. Iraq's September 1996 actions in the Kurdish north found such a seam in coalition objectives, or, to return to the original metaphor, shook one anchor of the U.S. policy tightrope. Dr. Stephen Pelletiere examines how the Kurdish crisis developed, why--most disturbingly--the key coalition members divided in response to U.S. actions, and what factors might guide future U.S. policy. He concludes that U.S. policy needs reanchoring if we are to achieve our paramount interests in this vital region.
Civil-Military Relations and the Not-Quite Wars of the Present and Future

Vincent Davis Dr.

Three papers presented at the Patterson School-Strategic Studies Institute Symposium focused on civil-military relations at various levels. West Point professor Don M. Snider maintains that continued pressures on the armed forces—especially the Army—to put aside war-fighting missions in favor of other missions will further strain civil-military relations. In the second essay, retired Admiral Stanley R. Arthur examines the broader aspects of civil-military relations where he sees a growing estrangement between all levels of the armed forces on the one hand, and the larger civilian society on the other. Finally, George Washington University professor Deborah D. Avant argues that the post-Vietnam war reluctance of senior military officers to take their forces into low-level threat interventions does not constitute defiance of established civilian political authority. In fact, she holds that this is precisely the way the American system of constitutionally-divided government is supposed to work, and that the real problem is the inability of top civilian politicians to form and achieve a consensus in their vision. Together these papers address a spectrum of issues attendant to the current debate over civil-military relations
Ethnic Conflict and European Security: Lessons from the Past and Implications for the Future

Maria Alongi Ms.

On October 23-25, 1995, coinciding with the Bosnia peace talks being held in Dayton, Ohio, Women in International Security (WIIS), an international, nonpartisan educational program; The Friedrich-Eberet Foundation; the U.S. Institute of Peace; and the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute sponsored a conference, "Ethnic Conflict and European Security: Lessons from the Past and Implications for the Future." Among the participants and attendees were scholars and policymakers from the United States and Europe concerned with the crisis in the Balkans and the larger ramifications of ethnic conflict for European security.

This rapporteur's summary compiled by Ms. Maria Alongi captures the primary themes of the conference to include linkages between ethnicity and instability in Europe, the role European and transatlantic security institutions can play in mitigating those tensions, and the various positive roles Russia and the United States can play in resolving or lessening the impact of ethnic conflict. Ms. Alongi concludes that the nature of the threat posed by ethnic conflict to European security is bound inexorably to a political manipulation; an ethnicization of politics. And while the Balkan crisis held the potential for catapulting Europe back to July 1914, the way the international community reacted to head off a further deterioration in the situation provides some basis for optimism.
The Strategist and the Web Revisited: An Updated Guide to Internet Resources

Steven Metz Dr. and James Kievit LTC

Every day of the "Information Age" makes more material available via the Internet. Yet simply "surfing the 'Net'," while perhaps enjoyable as recreation, is ill-suited for rapidly locating valid, salient information. This is particularly true for analysts or military professionals seeking to develop strategy, to research national security issues, or to provide policy advice. With the original edition of this essay in February 1996, James Kievit and Steven Metz began an effort to construct guideposts for strategic thinkers and practitioners to follow when travelling the "information superhighway." That such a "travel guide" is valuable is amply demonstrated by the rapidity with which SSI's stock of the original The Strategist and the Web has been exhausted. Accordingly, the authors have "revisited" the Web and updated this guide for planners and researchers interested in the practice, problems, and policies of contemporary national security and military strategy. As with the first version of this essay, the authors conclude that the Internet still is not "a solution to the analyst's need for relevant, timely information," but they remain convinced that individuals and organizations must prepare themselves for the day when "an analyst's collection of Internet 'bookmarks' will be nearly as valuable as a rolodex of personal contacts is now."