Volume 2, Issue 4

Contents

  • Can strategic effect be predicted; and how? Lukas Milevski examines the ends-ways-means trinity and identifies the strategist’s means as the basis of predictability in strategy, although all aspects of the trinity have their own role to play.

    Read
  • A large degree of the discussion on the United States’ focus on the Asia-Pacific has conflated Air-Sea Battle with strategy. In this article Nathan Finney argues that Air-Sea battle and its associated concepts are in reality merely the military’s contribution to strategy development; a starting point in the negotiation.

    Read
  • Conventional strategic thought during the Cold War posited the maintenance, in liberal democracies, of a clear boundary between ‘policy’ and ‘operations’: policy makers should stay out of operational decisions; conversely, policy’s executors should stay out of policy making. In this article, Emile Simpson challenges the endurance of this orthodoxy in the context of contemporary conflict.

    Read
  • The strategic impact of special operations is not well understood as casual readers either overstate their effects or fixate on the tactical aspects of missions. In this article, James Kiras places contemporary special operations in their appropriate strategic context and identifies some of the challenges and opportunities for special operations in the future.

    Read
  • In this article, Greg Fontenot and Kevin Benson argue that AirSea Battle, the US Navy and Air Force’s proposed concept for a 21st century way of war is necessary but insufficient. What is needed, given the conditions of our times, is a combination strategy and concept that will serve as the framework for the design of campaigns that ensure the United States and its allies freedom of navigation of the global commons.

    Read
Volume 2, Issue 4

Volume 2, Issue 4

Fall 2012