How to Lose a War or Two: Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Failure of the U.S. Army to Learn from the Low-Intensity Conflicts of the 1990s

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 611-617
Author(s):  
Benjamin E. Varat
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 434-468
Author(s):  
John Green ◽  
Richard Zeckhauser

AbstractFor decades, the U.S. Air Force has contemplated replacing the A-10 Thunderbolt II “Warthog” with a newer fighter aircraft. However, a quantitative analysis comparing the Warthog’s performance and costs with those of its intended replacement, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, shows that retiring the Warthog would be operationally unsound and fiscally imprudent. The rationale for the replacement is that it would increase airpower capability while controlling costs. That rationale does not withstand scrutiny. An effectiveness analysis based on results from a survey of joint terminal attack controllers indicates that the A-10 vastly outperforms the F-35 in providing close-air support (CAS), a critical requirement for future conflicts against terrorists and insurgents. A cost analysis demonstrates that replacing the A-10 before its service life ends in 2035 would cost at least $20.9 billion. The replacement plan would waste substantial resources and seriously impair U.S. military capabilities. Given that constrained future budgets and low-intensity conflicts requiring precision CAS can be expected, the U.S. air fleet should include the A-10 Thunderbolt II.


2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald S. Travis

The American sociologist Morris Janowitz presented two world views of security named “absolutist” and “pragmatist.” This dualistic paradigm endures into the 21st century and explains how complex and contentious security options are debated within the U.S. security establishment. His paradigm also reveals a condition called the “hegemon trap,” which means that the more powerful militarily that a state becomes relative to other states, the less likely it will fight a large-scale conventional war, resulting in frequent and perpetual limited, low-intensity, and unconventional wars. Based on experiences learned since the Vietnam War, the United States can improve global security by balancing resources between absolutist and pragmatist outlooks. This requires devoting a greater share of resources toward peacetime engagement, stability operations, and unconventional warfare.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. Gresh ◽  
Jason R. Courter

The global need for ecological forestry is more important today than ever. But despite a century of technical advancements from forestry leaders—especially in North America and Europe—the world's forest ecosystem is declining at a time when carbon levels are rising, and biodiversity is at risk. Unfortunately, even the world's innovation leaders are struggling to change industry practices in their home countries. Undeterred by the lack of progress, new efforts are being attempted with Europe taking a markedly different path than the U.S. In the U.S., the pursuit of ecological forestry has embraced natural disturbance frameworks and stresses customized goals for local environments and social demands. In Europe, a broad application of low-intensity harvest protocols and canopy protection is being promoted for many forest types. The U.S. approach shows strong ecological promise at local and regional scales, but its broad adoption within the industry as a whole is limited and inconsistent. For the European approach, the broadly elevated priority of continuous canopy draws scientific critics, but their forestry industry is adopting and applying the concept. Although lower-intensity harvests are common to both regions, evidence suggests that Europe may be using low-intensity methods too broadly, while the U.S. is using them too little. The objective of this perspective is to describe the historical development of ecological forestry in Europe and the United States, and to propose research adjustments to help America pursue broader ecological forestry application. By understanding the historical precedents that influence forestry perceptions and the differences in contemporary approaches among forestry leaders, forestry scientists may be better equipped to design research and promote practices that can influence industry behavior for better ecosystem implications.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document