Skip to main content (Press Enter).
Institute for National Strategic Studies
National Defense University
Center for Complex Operations
Center for Strategic Research
Center for Technology and National Security Policy
Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
Center for the Study of WMD
National Defense University Press
Program on Irregular Warfare
Joint Force Quarterly
China Strategic Perspectives
Middle East Strategic Perspectives
INSS Strategic Perspectives
CSWMD Occasional Papers
Defense & Technology Papers
CSWMD Case Studies
NWC Case Studies
ICAF Case Studies
Biological & Chemical Defense
Cyber Security & Information Technology
Ethics & Leadership
Gaming & Simulation Design
Humanitarian Assistance & Disaster Relief
Interagency & International Education
International Law & National Security Law
Joint Professional Military Education
Joint Strategic Logistics
Law of Armed Conflict
Military Psychology & Resilience
National Security Reform
Science & Technology
Stabilization & Reconstruction
Supply Chain Management
Asia and the Pacific
Latin America and the Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
Russia and Eurasia
Next Steps in Syria
December 1, 2013
— Nearly 3 years since the start of the Syrian civil war, no clear winner is in sight. Assassinations and defections of civilian and military loyalists close to President Bashar al-Asad, rebel success in parts of Aleppo and other key towns, and the spread of violence to Damascus itself suggest that the regime is losing ground to its opposition. The tenacity of government forces in retaking territory lost to rebel factions, such as the key town of Qusayr, and attacks on Turkish and Lebanese military targets indicate, however, that the regime can win because of superior military equipment, especially airpower and missiles, and help from Iran and Hizballah.
Crisis Stability and Nuclear Exchange Risks on the Subcontinent: Major Trends and the Iran Factor
November 1, 2013
— Crisis stability—the probability that political tensions and low-level conflict will not erupt into a major war between India and Pakistan—is less certain in 2013 than at any time since their sequential nuclear weapons tests of 1998. India’s vast and growing spending on large conventional military forces, at least in part as a means to dissuade Pakistan’s tolerance of (or support for) insurgent and terrorist activity against India, coupled with Pakistan’s post- 2006 accelerated pursuit of tactical nuclear weapons as a means to offset this Indian initiative, have greatly increased the risk of a future Indo-Pakistani military clash or terrorist incident escalating to nuclear exchange. America’s limited abilities to prevent the escalation of an Indo-Pakistani crisis toward major war are best served by continuing a significant military and political presence in Afghanistan and diplomatic and military-to-military dialogue with Pakistan well beyond 2014.
Deepening Japan’s Information Security Regime: The Need of Domestic Legislation
November 1, 2013
— In August 2007, the United States and Japan concluded a General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) to facilitate the sharing of classified information. Based on some 60 precedents, the agreement has established common security standards to allow for sharing of intelligence as well as information on defense programs and operations. Given the well developed U.S. legal and administrative regime governing the protection of classified information, U.S.-Japan bilateral information sharing will be greatly facilitated by Japan’s adoption of a similar domestic regime.
Valued Sustainable Services: Building Partnership Capacity Through Collaborating Approaches
July 1, 2013
— The Valued Sustainable Services (ValSServ) concept is an approach to building the capacity of local populations. It emphasizes the interdependency among telecommunications, reliable power, and information-sharing support, and encourages projects to be developed in integrated packages rather than in stove-piped lines of effort. ValSServ focuses on bottom-up projects in complex civil-military operations that can be funded, planned, and executed at local levels, while being consistent with top-down national and theater strategies. It takes a system-of-systems approach, recognizing that successful projects can generate positive ripple effects in local environments and throughout extended networks. This paper focuses on ValSServ within the wide range of U.S. Department of Defense operating environments, such as capacity-building to help shape peacetime conditions in partner nations, post-disaster recovery, and helping to move from the “hold” to the “build” phases in counterinsurgency operations.
Sharing to Succeed: Lessons from Open Information-sharing Projects in Afghanistan
July 1, 2013
— The sharing of information in complex civil-military operations is important, yet actors rarely do it well. U.S. and allied military forces must be able to communicate, collaborate, and exchange information effectively with the local populations they seek to influence, or they cannot achieve the goals for which they have been committed. Nonetheless, experience from stability operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, numerous humanitarian assistance/disaster relief missions, and efforts to build the capacity of foreign partners suggest that effective information-sharing is much harder than might be expected. This paper sheds light on the difficulties of setting up and sustaining projects to share information in such situations and suggests ways to do better in the future.
Indo-Chinese Relations & Border Issues in Northeast India: A View from India
April 11, 2013
— Today in addition to the hot weather outside, it’s actually a hot agenda here at the National Defense University both in terms of activities as well as for those that work in the wider intellectual community thinking of issues that we are going to discuss today. I thank you all for being here in a timely fashion and make early apologies for those who will be arriving perhaps a little bit late --- principally from the other side of the river, the Defense Department and the wider Pentagon who will join in as we continue. But I’m delighted to have each of you here today and delighted to be sitting next to our guest speaker.
Convergence: Illicit Networks and National Security in the Age of Globalization
April 1, 2013
— Acceleration. Magnification. Diffusion. Entropy. Empowerment. The global environment and the international system are evolving at hypervelocity. A consensus is emerging among policymakers, scholars, and practitioners that recent sweeping developments in information technology, communication, transportation, demographics, and conflict are making global governance more challenging. Some argue these developments have transformed our international system, making it more vulnerable than ever to the predations of terrorists and criminals. Others argue that despite this significant evolution, organized crime, transnational terrorism, and nonstate networks have been endemic if unpleasant features of human society throughout history, that they represent nothing new, and that our traditional means of countering them—primarily conventional law enforcement—are adequate. Even among those who perceive substantial differences in the contemporary manifestations of these persistent maladies, they are viewed as major nuisances not adding up to a significant national or international security threat, much less an existential threat.
China’s Forbearance Has Limits: Chinese Threat and Retaliation Signaling and Its Implications for a Sino-American Military Confrontation
April 1, 2013
— Since its founding in 1949, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has employed military force in defense of China’s security and territorial integrity. In many such instances, Beijing implemented a calculus of threat and retaliation signals intended first to deter an adversary from taking actions contrary to Chinese interests by threatening the use of military force and, if deterrence failed, to explain and justify Beijing’s resort to military force.
The New NATO Policy Guidelines on Counterterrorism: Analysis, Assessments, and Actions
February 1, 2013
— DOWNLOAD PDFExecutive Summary The history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will say that the first, and so far only, time NATO has called upon its Article 5 collective defense clause was on September 12, 2001, following a terrorist attack on one of its members. Yet, until the agreement by NATO Heads of State and Government on the
The International Atomic Energy Agency's Decision to Find Iran in Non-Compliance, 2002-2006
December 1, 2012
— On August 14, 2002, at a press conference in Washington, DC, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an exiled Iranian opposition group, drew worldwide attention when it publicly accused Iran of clandestinely developing nuclear weapons. Alireza Jafarzadeh, then-U.S. media spokesperson for the NCRI, described two “top secret” nuclear facilities being constructed in Iran at Natanz and Arak under the guise of front companies involved in the procurement of nuclear material and equipment. Noting that media attention had focused on Iran’s publicly declared civilian facilities, Jafarzadeh claimed that “in reality, there are many secret nuclear programs at work in Iran without knowledge of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),” the international body responsible for verifying and assuring compliance with safeguards obligations under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).