US Military's Experience in Stability Operations, 1789-2005

US Military's Experience in Stability Operations, 1789-2005 PDF

Author:

Publisher:

Published: 2006

Total Pages:

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK →

This study provides a brief overview of the US military?s involvement in stability operations and draws out the salient patterns and recurring themes that can be derived from those experiences. It is hoped that a presentation and critical analysis of the historical record will assist today?s Army in its attempts, now well under way, to reassess its long-standing attitudes toward stability operations and the role it should play in them. The US military?s experience in the conduct of stability operations prior to the Global War on Terrorism can be divided chronologically into four periods: the country?s first century (1789-1898); the?Small Wars? experience (1898-1940)7; the Cold War (1945-1990); and the post-Cold War decade (1991-2001). Reference will be made to a group of 28 representative case studies. The list of these case studies can be found at appendix A; synopses of the cases, written by members of the Combat Studies Institute, are located in appendix B.

The US Military's Experience in Stability Operations, 1789-2005

The US Military's Experience in Stability Operations, 1789-2005 PDF

Author: Lawrence A. Yates

Publisher: CreateSpace

Published: 2012-06-29

Total Pages: 108

ISBN-13: 9781478159964

DOWNLOAD EBOOK →

This Global War on Terrorism Occasional Paper (GWOT OP), by Dr. Lawrence Yates, provides his thoughts and analysis of the US Army's participation in stability operations (SO) since 1789. Dr. Yates, a member of the CSI Team since 1981, has spent twenty plus years intensely studying this aspect of Army operations. Prior to his retirement in 2005, CSI asked him to put in writing his impressions formed by his research in this field. The result is this monograph. Dr. Yates makes several key arguments about the Army's involvement in SO. Among the key points he makes is his contention that the Army has an institutional habit of forgetting the lesson learned about SO, when, after conducting a stability operation, it returns to conventional warfare preparation. He also point out, correctly, that the Army, which has participated in far more SO-type activities sine 1789 than it has conventional wars, has hitherto retained a mindset that stability operations are an anomaly rather than the norm in American military operations. It is our hope that this GWOT OP will be of great value in providing the military professional with a broad overview of the history of the US Army's participation in stability operations, and at least one historian's view on how well it performed. Some may disagree with Dr. Yates' views on specific aspects of his analysis; that is well and good. If this GWOT OP stimulates a vigorous debate, Dr. Yates' study will have achieved its purpose.~

Mission Revolution

Mission Revolution PDF

Author: Jennifer M. Taw

Publisher: Columbia University Press

Published: 2012

Total Pages: 282

ISBN-13: 0231153244

DOWNLOAD EBOOK →

Jennifer Morrison Taw examines the military's sudden embrace of stability operations and their implications for American foreign policy and war.

Peacekeeping and Related Stability Operations: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement

Peacekeeping and Related Stability Operations: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement PDF

Author: Nina M. Serafino

Publisher:

Published: 2005

Total Pages: 15

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK →

The 110th Congress may well face several decisions regarding the preparation of U.S. military forces for stability missions, a major subset of which is peace operations. A November 28, 2005, Department of Defense (DOD) directive that designates stability operations as "core missions" of the U.S. military marks a major shift in attitudes regarding peacekeeping and related stability operations (also known as stabilization and reconstruction operations). Since then, DOD has worked to define specific changes that must be made to better accomplish such missions, some of which the U.S. military could implement on its own, while others would require Congressional approval. For well over a decade, some Members of Congress expressed reservations about U.S. military involvement in peacekeeping operations. The Bush Administration initially opposed such missions and took steps to reduce the commitment of U.S. troops to international peacekeeping. This action reflected a major concern of the 1990s: that peacekeeping duties had overtaxed the shrinking U.S. military force and were detrimental to military "readiness" (i.e., the ability of U.S. troops to defend the nation). Many perceived these tasks as an inefficient use of U.S. forces, better left to other nations while the U.S. military concentrated on operations requiring high-intensity combat skills. Others thought that the United States should adjust force size and structure to accommodate the missions.

Lanterna Rally - Theme by Grace Themes