Decisive Point

A Call to Action: Lessons from Ukraine for the Future Force Fifty years ago, the US Army faced a strategic inflection point after a failed counterinsurgency effort in Vietnam. In response to lessons learned from the Yom Kippur War, the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command was created to reorient thinking and doctrine around the conventional Soviet threat. Today’s Army must embrace the Russo-Ukrainian conflict as an opportunity to reorient the force into one as forward-thinking and formidable as the Army that won Operation Desert Storm. This episode suggests changes the Army should make to enable success in multidomain large-scale combat operations at today’s strategic inflection point. Read the article here. Read the episode transcript here.   Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: strategic inflection point, Ukraine, multidomain operations (MDO), mission command, large-scale combat operations (LSCO)

This podcast analyzes the US Army’s successive recruiting crises, identifying their consistent patterns and the efforts to resolve them, and makes three provocative arguments. First, there is a long-standing institutional tension between recruiting personnel for the combat arms and technical and administrative specialists. Second, many of today’s talent management problems were first identified in a 1907 General Staff report and reiterated in subsequent studies. Third, the Army has pursued innovative recruitment strategies, but much of their success depended on factors outside the service’s control. The podcast concludes with four history-based recruiting lessons and an affirmation that the 2019 Army People Strategy recognizes the need for the Army to revise its talent management approach. Read the article here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: recruitment, US Army history, personnel policy, talent management, Army People Strategy

Parameters Autumn 2023 Issue Preview This podcast offers a preview of the latest Parameters demi-issue and full issue. Read the issue here. Read the podcast transcript here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: recruiting, Ukraine, Taiwan, Antarctica, Russia, Chechen Kadyrovtsy

John A. Bonin and James D. Scudieri – "Change and Innovation in the Institutional Army" This episode showcases the understudied institutional Army, the generating force, as a critical prerequisite for overall strategic success. Competition, crisis, and conflict require more than the manned, trained, and equipped units that deploy. This podcast analyzes six case studies of institutional Army reforms over 160 years to examine adaptation in peace and war. The conclusions provide historical insights to inform current practices and fulfill the Army’s articulated 2022 Institutional Strategy. Read the article here. E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: institutional Army, generating force, Department of the Army staff, Army Futures Command, adaptation, innovation About the authors: Dr. John A. Bonin is a consultant and Distinguished Fellow at the US Army War College. He held a variety of field and academic positions during 30 years of active-duty military service before retiring in June 2002. Bonin has degrees from the United States Military Academy, Duke University, and Temple University. As a member of the faculty for over 27 years, he has served as an instructor, historian, and battlefield guide. Bonin has published, presented, and advised widely. Dr. James D. Scudieri is the senior research historian at the Strategic  Studies Institute, US Army War College. He held a variety of field and academic positions during 30 years of active-duty military service before retiring in August 2013. Scudieri has a master of arts degree from Hunter College of CUNY, a master of military art and science degree from the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), and a doctorate in military history from the Graduate School and University Center of CUNY. He is a 2004 graduate of the US Army War College and the Advanced Strategic Arts Program

"Innovation, Flexibility, and Adaptation: Keys to Patton's Information Dominance" In 1944, Third US Army created a cohesive and flexible system for managing information and denying it to the enemy that aligned operational concepts with technological capabilities. The organization’s success in the European Theater highlights its effective combined arms integration. An examination of the historical record shows the creative design of the Signal Intelligence and Army Information Services enabled Third Army to deliver information effects consistently and provides a useful model for considering the dynamics at play in fielding new and experimental multidomain effects formations. Read the article here. Read the podcast transcript here. E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: World War II, Third United States Army, military effectiveness, force design, information advantage About the author: Major Spencer L. French, US Army, is a military intelligence officer currently assigned as the operations officer for the 704th Military Intelligence Brigade at Fort Meade, Maryland. His research interests focus on historical military innovation and force design.

Luke P. Bellocchi – "The Strategic Importance of Taiwan to the United States and Its Allies" This podcast presents four factors to consider in evaluating Taiwan’s strategic importance to the United States and its allies and answers a question often raised at forums concerning the Indo-Pacific: “Why should the United States care” about this small island in the Pacific? The response often given is simply US credibility, and while this is an important factor, this podcast reviews a wider array of possible factors to consider when answering that question. The study of these factors should assist US military and policy practitioners in accurately evaluating the related strategic environment. Through a survey of official US policy statements and strategy documents across administrations, part two of this podcast (to be featured in a future issue) will examine the evolving US perception of Taiwan throughout the aggressive strengthening of China and during Taiwan’s domestic political development into a full-fledged democracy. Read the article here. E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: Taiwan, geopolitical, credibility, democracy, authoritarian Read the transcript: Luke P. Bellocchi – "The Strategic Importance of Taiwan to the United States and Its Allies" About the author: Luke P. Bellocchi, JD, LLM, MSSI, MBA, served in senior and senior executive positions throughout his government career and is now an associate professor of practice at National Defense University, where he teaches strategy and a China elective at the Joint Advanced Warfighting School. His recent work, “The U.S. One China Policy: A Primer for Professional Military Education,” can be found at https://jfsc.ndu.edu/Media/Campaigning-Journals/.

National security practitioners need to understand the motives, mindsets, and intentions of adversaries to anticipate and respond to their actions effectively. Although some authors have argued empathy helps build an understanding of the adversary, research points to its cognitive component of perspective taking as the more appropriate skill for national security practitioners to have. In this podcast, Dr. Allison  Abbe synthesizes previous research on the development and application of perspective taking in analysis and decision making and recommends four ways strategists and practitioners can enhance their ability to gain insight into adversaries. Read the article here. E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: perspective taking, strategic empathy, political psychology, military education, cognitive bias Episode Transcript: Understanding the Adversary: Strategic Empathy and Perspective Taking in National Security Stephanie Crider (Host)  You're listening to Decisive Point, a US Army War College Press production focused on national security affairs. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.   I'm talking with Dr. Allison Abbe today, author of “Understanding the Adversary: Strategic Empathy and Perspective Taking in National Security,” which was published in the Summer 2023 issue of Parameters. Abbe is a professor of organizational studies at the US Army War College. Her research focuses on the development of leadership and intercultural skills in national security personnel.  Welcome to Decisive Point, Dr. Abbe.  Dr. Allison Abbe  Thanks for having me.  Host  Your article synthesizes research on perspective taking in analysis and decision making and recommends four ways strategists and practitioners can enhance their ability to gain insight into adversaries. Will you please explain perspective taking in the context of strategic empathy?  Abbe  Sure. So, strategic empathy has been talked about in terms of understanding adversaries and competitors and being able to better anticipate their actions. And in psychology, the topic of empathy has been more in the context of helping relationships between clinicians and patients, or clinicians and clients in the context of mental health. And so, there's a rich literature on empathy but in a slightly different context than in the national security arena.   In psychology, empathy is talked about in terms of empathic concern for the other person or party, motivation to engage in empathy, and then perspective taking. So those three components are not as equally applicable in the national security arena as they might be in a one-on-one relationship—an interpersonal relationship like in a romantic relationship or a patient-practitioner medical kind of context. So, focusing on perspective taking allows us to pull just the really relevant skills about empathy that can be applied in the national security context and focus more on how it is people can go about understanding the cognitive perspective of someone else without taking on the emotions of another party or really wanting to help the other party. You can maintain your own interests while understanding the perspective of the adversary, or even a partner.  Host  How can leaders and strategists develop perspective taking as a skill?  Abbe  So, perspective taking as a basic ability develops in childhood. We know from the developmental psychology literature that we're capable of it as small children. But it's a very cognitively demanding skill, and so people don't automatically engage in it. Your default is to use your own perspective, and then you only take on someone else's perspective with additional cognitive effort. And so,

Nicholas A. A. Murray – “Geniuses Dare to Ride Their Luck: Clausewitz's Card Game Analogies” Scholars have been using the wrong card games to analyze Carl von Clausewitz’s analogies in On War, which has led to errors in understanding his ideas. This podcast identifies the games Clausewitz discusses, allowing for a more accurate interpretation of his original meaning for the study of war. Since Clausewitz’s ideas underpin strategy development within service education systems, it is critical his ideas are fully understood in context. Read the article here. E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: card games, luck/chance, genius, gambling, daring, probability, trinity, cheating Episode Transcript: Geniuses Dare to Ride Their Luck: Clausewitz's Card Game Analogies Stephanie Crider (Host)  You're listening to Decisive Point, a US Army War College Press production focused on national security affairs. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.   I'm talking today with Dr. Nicholas Murray. Murray designs and runs war games for the Secretary of Defense Strategic Thinkers Program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and Professional Military Education. He also translates the works of Carl von Clausewitz and other theorists. He's the author of “Geniuses Dare to Ride Their Luck: Clausewitz’s Card Game Analogies,” which was published in the Summer 2023 issue of Parameters.   Welcome to Decisive Point, Nick.  Nicholas A. A. Murray  Thank you very much for having me. It's a pleasure.  Host  Your article asserts that scholars have been using the wrong card games to analyze Clausewitz’s analogies on war, which has led to errors in understanding his ideas. Please expand on that.  Murray  The reason I got into this . . .  I think a bit of background might help . . .  is the card games we use, which are typically blackjack, poker, or games like chess and bridge and things, didn't seem to line up with what else I was reading and finding in his histories in terms of how he understood luck. And so, as I dug into it, the question struck me, which was what games would he have actually been familiar with, and what would he have played?   And except for chess, the other games weren't popular or even invented at the time of his life or writing. So, I started to look into that. What I found was that the games that he had in mind and actually discussed often—sometimes explicitly—were different stochastically in terms of luck. And they were different in terms of player interaction. And they were different in terms of things like cheating, which was an inherent part of almost all the games with which he was familiar. Taking that into account, it meant that contemporary analogies, using, say, blackjack, where one can card count, you can change the strategy of playing against the casino in your favor, for example. That simply didn't exist. And so, he wasn't thinking about something like that. He was thinking about something far more chance ridden than we have in mind.  Host  Which card games was Clausewitz likely talking about?  Murray  The three I've been able to identify, along with something called würfel, which is a version of a variety of different dice games, which is simply you roll a dice and bet on it. Sort of like craps, I suppose.   But the three main ones are games called faro, skat, and ombre. And these were games that were familiar to Clausewitz. He explicitly references two and implicitly references skat via phrases that occur within that game.   These card games are much different from the ones we would think about in terms of blackjack or poker.

In an evolving and expanding biothreat landscape caused by emerging biotechnologies, increases in global infectious disease outbreaks, and geopolitical instability, the Department of Defense now faces challenges that alter its traditional approach to biothreats and prompt the need for modernized, improved preparedness for—and response to—potential biothreat scenarios. These challenges further complicate specific weaknesses revealed by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the Department’s inability to sustain the military mission while meeting intragovernmental expectations to assist with civilian public health resources and services. Read the article here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: biosecurity, biodefense, biological threats, preparedness Episode Transcript: “Responding to Future Pandemics: Biosecurity Implications and Defense Considerations”  Stephanie Crider (Host)  You’re listening to Decisive Point, a US Army War College Press production focused on national security affairs. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.  Decisive Point welcomes Drs. Diane DiEuliis and James Jordano, authors of “Responding to Future Pandemics: Bio Security Applications and Defense Considerations,” which was published in the Summer 2023 issue of Parameters.  DiEuliis is a distinguished research fellow at the National Defense University, and Giordano holds several distinguished titles, including the Pellegrino Center professor in the departments of neurology and biochemistry.   Thank you for joining me today, Drs. DiEuliss and Giordano.  Dr. James Giordano  Thank you.  Dr. Diane DiEuliis  Thank you. It's great to be with you today.  Host  Your article addresses three primary factors that have complicated the evolving landscape of biodefense threats. What are they?  Giordano  Let me take the first. The first one that we mentioned is emerging biotechnologies across a spectrum of potential applications in recent developments. These include, but certainly aren't limited to, things such as gene editing. Probably the one most people are most currently familiar with is the use of a particular gene scissoring tool called CRISPR CAS9. But realistically, what that does is that just adds to our current armamentarium and makes our current armamentarium more facile and far easier to both acquire and use with regard to the existing techniques and technologies for gene editing to modify the genome and perhaps direct various phenotypes (expressions of physical characteristics). Going right along with that is the vast field of synthetic biology. Synthetic biology ranges everything from the molecular to the mass effect to the subcellular all the way to those things that can produce social change and a variety of different applications.   Certainly, we're concerned about those things that directly affect humans, but realistically, there's a number of things in synthetic biology that can disrupt and affect the ecologies and the environments upon which humans are dependent and interact. And this can then have ripple effects. And, really, I think the potentiator, and as Diane and I both have argued in print, the force multiplier for these is the use of big data coupled with forms of machine learning that are iteratively becoming forms of artificial intelligence. You put all these things together and you got yourself a juggernaut of biotechnological capability with a broad, broad range and field of different applications and uses and potential misuses. Diane?  DiEuliis  Thanks, Jim. Tagging on to that as a second concern is the fact that we may be looking in future at an increasing incidence of emerging infectious disease. And as the world's population grows,

The US military, intelligence, and diplomatic communities have overlooked a key vulnerability in their assessment of a potential military conflict between China and Taiwan—Taiwan’s growing reliance on agricultural imports and its food stocks (except for rice) that could endure trade disruptions for only six months. This podcast assesses Taiwan’s agricultural sector and its ability to feed the country’s population if food imports and production are disrupted; identifies the food products that should be prioritized in resupply operations, based on Taiwan’s nutritional needs and domestic food production; and outlines the required logistical assets. These findings underscore the urgency for US military planners to develop long-term logistical solutions for this complex strategic issue. Read the article here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: China, Taiwan, food insecurity, resiliency, naval blockade Episode  Transcript: "Taiwan's Food  Resiliency—or Not—in a Conflict with China" Stephanie Crider (Host) You're listening to Decisive Point. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government. Today, I'm chatting with Captain Gustavo Ferreira and Major Jamie Critelli, authors of “Taiwan’s Food Resiliency—or Not—in a Conflict with China.” Ferreira is a senior agricultural economist with the US Department of Agriculture and serves as an agricultural officer at the 353 Civil Affairs Command, US Army Reserves. Critelli, US Army Reserves, is a civil affairs officer serving as an agricultural officer in the 353 Civil Affairs Command. He's a seasonal farm business owner and has worked globally in agriculture on five continents. Welcome back to Decisive Point, gentlemen. Jamie Critelli     Thank you for having us here, Stephanie. Gustavo Ferreira Thank you, Stephanie. Happy to be here. Host Your article . . .  it focuses on Taiwan's food resiliency. Please give us an overview of Taiwan's agricultural sector. Ferreira I would like to start by emphasizing how recent supply chain disruptions, crop failures in some key producing countries, as well as the war in Ukraine, have pushed global food prices to record high levels and also reminded many countries about the risks associated with the dependency on food imports to feed their populations. In the case of Taiwan, as this country industrialized its economy and developed key manufacturing sectors such as the semiconductor sector, its agricultural production had been declining for decades. As a result, Taiwan's ability to feed itself has decreased, and food imports now cover about 2/3s of its annual caloric intake. What's problematic with this is that contrary to what we've seen in Ukraine(where the) United States and other NATO allies are being able to supply Ukraine with massive amounts of supplies through a vast shared land border. A similar effort will not be possible for Taiwan because of A). Taiwan being an island and B). China's Liberation Army Navy and Rocket Force have now the capabilities of denying freedom of movement to any adversary naval force in the air. In the context of a conflict with China; it will be extremely difficult and risky for cargo ships and airlift to reach Taiwan. Another challenge will be the fact that China will likely attempt to capture major operational ports to use them to dock their own merchant civilian ships to supply its invasion of Taiwan. As a response, the Taiwanese military will almost certainly try to deny China's access to these ports via obstacles such as sea mines or sunken ships. With all main ports no longer operational, we believe the United States and its allies will struggle to transport and unload critical food supplies to Taiwan. Nevertheless,

In contemporary military operations, some problems are so complex they do not give way to linear solutions but require problem management instead. Combining the fundamentals of Dao De Jing philosophy with the US military design process offers a new perspective to analyze complex security problems, devise management strategies, and plan military operations. Applying this new approach to the complex security environment in Syria allows for a nonlinear mapping of long-term goals and a new perspective on relationships between key actors, environmental factors that restrict changes in the security environment, and where planners should focus their attention. Read the article here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: design thinking, military planning, Dao, Syria, ISIS Episode Transcript: "Daoism and Design: Mapping the Conflict in Syria" Stephanie Crider (Host)  You’re listening to Decisive Point, a US Army War College Press production focused on national security affairs. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.   Joining me today are Colonel Ned Marsh and Dr. Heather Gregg, authors of “Daoism and Design: Mapping the Conflict in Syria” from the Spring 2023 issue of Parameters. Colonel Marsh is a US Army Special Forces officer and a current garrison commander within the Installation Management Command. Dr. Gregg is a professor of irregular warfare at the George C. Marshall Center for European Studies and is a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. Welcome to Decisive Point, Ned. Welcome back, Heather.  Dr. Heather S. Gregg  It's great to be here.  COL Ned B. Marsh  Thanks for having us on.  Host  Your work says combining the fundamentals of Daoist philosophy from the ancient literary work of the Tao Te Ching with the US military design process offers a new perspective with which to analyze problems, devise management strategies, and plan military operations. Tell me more. How so?  Marsh  The Dao’s what we see as an alternative perspective to a Western mindset. The Western mindset tends to see life as linear, objective-based, a realm of cause and effect. Instead, the Dao sees life as a constant flow of events with some things that are in our control and most that are out of our control. The philosophy emphasizes the continuous nature of being that people flow through life around obstacles like water would around a stone in a river. I think the simplest summary is that we should worry about the things we can control and not worry about the things that we cannot.   There's four fundamentals. The first is that there's no permanent reality. So, our reality is an endless continuous stream of interactive situations. The second is that every event is the result of the interaction of all the preceding events. It's never-ending. It's a ceaseless development of new context. And this limits the value of concepts such as linearity, cause and effect, and prediction. Third is that we only see life from the perspective that we are in it. We're the water in the river. We're not standing on the shore looking at the water. Those fundamentals, they describe the reality. The fourth describes how we fit into it. The good news is that we have agency. Our path isn't predestined. Our actions can shape the future and influence our environment. So, we recognize these realities. And then we cultivate ourselves, our organizations, and our environments to foster success. We can create emergent opportunities, and we can be successful.  Host  Heather, did you want to weigh in on this too?  Gregg  Thinking in these terms is particularly useful for complex problem management. So many of the problems that we see in foreign policy today are so complex...

This podcast offers a preview of the latest Parameters demi-issue and full issue. Read the demi-issue here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: Taiwan, China, food resiliency, COVID-19, biotechnology, Episode Transcript Stephanie Crider (Host)  You're listening to Decisive Point, a US Army War College Press production focused on national security affairs. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government. I have Dr. Conrad C. Crane, acting editor in chief of Parameters, with me today to talk about the summer demi-issue and the forthcoming full summer issue of Parameters. Thank you for being here, Dr. Crane.  Dr. Conrad C. Crane  Glad to be here.  Host  Always glad to have you. So, the Demi issue—this is a relatively new product for the Army War College Press. It's released about a month before the full issue of Parameters, and it addresses unfolding current events and topics critical to our readership. It generates interest in the forthcoming full issue, and it tackles the big questions being asked today in the fields of military strategy and defense policy.   What does the summer demi-issue have in store for our audience?  Crane  We've got a couple of very interesting articles. The first is an In Focus special commentary responding to future pandemics, bio security implications, and defense considerations by a couple of civilian PhDs—Diane DeEuliis and James Giordano. They look at the expanding bio threat landscape, and they look at the experience of COVID-19 and the challenges that put on (the Department of Defense) DoD, especially. And (they) argue for a modernized improved preparedness and response system.   They contend that the COVID-19 experience revealed a bunch of weaknesses, including the Department Defense's inability to sustain the military mission while dealing with intra-governmental expectations to assist with other pieces of the government. And it's really going to challenge how we balance our resources. So, it's an interesting look at the future, perhaps, of these future pandemics.  The second piece is a piece of a Taiwan Forum where we're taking a look at Taiwan in this issue and it's on Taiwan's food resiliency—or not—in a conflict with China. The authors there, Gustavo Ferreira and Jamie Cartelli, are both reserve officers. They deal with some military issues in their normal work, but they really talk about the dilemma that we face with Taiwan is if it gets cut off, it's got about six month’s worth of food. So, the question is, how do you deal with the possibility that the Chinese may blockade or somehow degrade their ability to sustain themselves?   And they really look at the potential scenarios and findings that underscore the urgency for US leadership and for military planners to really develop long-term logistical solutions before this crisis happens. So two very insightful articles, (going in) a little different directions, but really should give our readers something to think about. And then, of course, there's more articles coming in the full issue when it comes out about a month later.  Host  Speaking of the full issue, what can we expect? Do you have any idea what we can look forward to?  Crane  We've got a set of very interesting articles scheduled for the full issue, starting out with Dr. Allison Abbe, who's one of the faculty here at the War College. The title of her piece is called “Understanding the Adversary: Strategic Empathy and Perspective Taking in National Security,” and she looks at this whole issue of how do you gain insight into the motives and mindsets of adversaries and partners? She looks at a number of different scenarios. It's interesting that she talks a lot about this idea of strategic e...

Contesting Paul Scharre’s influential vision of “centaur warfighting” and the idea that autonomous weapon systems will replace human warfighters, Sparrow and Henschke propose that the manned-unmanned teams of the future are more likely to be minotaurs—teams of humans under the control, supervision, or command of artificial intelligence. They examine the likely composition of the future force and prompt a necessary conversation about the ethical issues raised by minotaur warfighting. Read the article here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: manned-unmanned teaming, centaur warfighting, autonomous weapon systems, future force, ethics Episode Transcript: "Minotaurs, Not Centaurs: The Future of Manned-Unmanned Teaming" Stephanie Crider (Host) You're listening to Decisive Point. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government. Today I'm chatting with Rob Sparrow, professor in the philosophy program and an associate investigator in the Australian Research Council Center of Excellence for Automated Decision-making and Society at Monash University, and Adam Henschke, an assistant professor in the philosophy section at the University of Twente, Netherlands. Sparrow and Henske are the authors of “Minotaurs, Not Centaurs: The Future of Manned-Unmanned Teaming,” which ran in the Spring 2023 issue of Parameters. Welcome to Decisive Point, gentlemen. Set the stage for us, please, including Paul Sharre's perspective. Robert J. Sparrow We've seen drones and teleoperated weapon systems play an increasing role in contemporary conflict. There is lots of enthusiasm for autonomy in weapon systems in the military, as I think 20 years ago, there was a paper in Parameters arguing that in the future the tempo of battle would increase to such a point that only computers would be capable of making the decisions that are required to win battles. So for a long time, there's been a debate about the relationship between human beings and unmanned systems in warfighting. Recently, Paul Sharre has argued that we don't need to worry about autonomous weapon systems taking over all the combat roles because, actually, the future of warfighting involves manned-unmanned teaming, and Sharre suggests that we should think of this on the model of what he described as a Centaur. A centaur is a mythical creature with the head and upper body of a human being and the lower body of a horse. And that's a really nice image. You've got the human being in command and in control and the machines doing the physical work involved in warfighting. We think that's perhaps optimistic for a number of reasons, and that what we've seen, is really in applications, is it's often easier to get machines to be making decisions than it is to get machines to do physical work. And so, for that reason, we think that the future of manned-unmanned teaming might be better imagined as what we call a minotaur. And so, rather than the human being in charge of the team, we suspect that in many roles, actually, the AI will be in charge of the team. And the human beings will be effectively under the command of the AI and doing the physical work, where the mental work will be performed by artificial intelligence. Henschke One way to think of Paul Sharre's approach is, as Rob said, he's advocated this view of centaur warfighting, and there the human is generally seen as the head, the decision-making part of the warfighting operation. And the robots and the machines, they do the, kind of, the grunt work. They're the things that do the stuff on the ground. So, the way in which this manned-unmanned kind of vision is put forward in Sharre’s work is humans do the deciding and the robots, or the machines, do the fighting Host

The US Army is unprepared to occupy and stabilize territory because it does not adequately educate active-duty officers to do so. One way to professionalize the Army’s ability to carry out military government and stability operations is to develop active-duty functional area officers who can advise commanders and integrate staff planning for these operations. In this episode, author Andrew Colvin analyzes case studies, doctrine, and commentary to envision specialized staff officers with foreign language proficiency, cultural skills, advanced academic abilities, and a strong professional ethic. These officers would enhance the Army’s competence in stabilizing territory to achieve American policy objectives. Read the article here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: stability, civil affairs, military government, professional studies, foreign language Episode Transcript: "The Case for an Army Stability Professional" Stephanie Crider (Host) You're listening to Decisive Point. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government. Today I'm talking with Andrew Colvin, an active-duty engineer officer in the commissioned corps of the US Public Health Service and author of the “Case for an Army Stability Professional,” which was published in the Spring 2023 issue of Parameters. Andrew, thanks so much for joining me today. I'm glad you're here. Tell me what inspired you to write this article. Andrew Colvin So, I wrote this article because of my experiences as a civil affairs and engineer officer in the Army, and it left me convicted that we were missing something very critical to winning our nation's wars. So, I began my research and discovered that I wasn't the only one who thought this way, so I'll start by stating the obvious. War is about exercising power over people and territory. It's political at its core, but the army really struggles to translate violence into, say, a stable political arrangement that furthers American interests. And doctor Nadia Schadlow does a great job explaining this in her book War and the Art of Governance. But as an Army, we have words for this concept—stability, operations—in military government. We have doctrine for this concept. We even have recent experience trying to implement this concept. What we don't have and what we've never really had is the right kind of education for leaders who can guide the Army to success. So, I wrote this paper to propose a solution to this problem, and I want to prepare conventional forces for stability operations during and after large-scale combat. And in a world of finite resources and time, stability operations are never going to get the attention they need from the Army. I recognize that. I think a workable solution is to invest in staff officers—leaders who are selected and educated to advise commanders and integrate staff planning for stability at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war. Host You recommend the Army develop stability professionals. Can you expand on that, please? Colvin I envision an active-duty functional area, a specialized officer career field to professionalize the Army's ability to carry out stability operations, and military government. And I use the word “professional” in its highest sense in the Samuel P. Huntington sense of people who serve society as members of a distinct group with skills that require a lifetime of education practice to master. So this person I envision, the stability professional, is defined by three skills. One is their cultural awareness and foreign language abilities. Two is their advanced academic education. And three, is their military ethic and experience. And so I'll elaborate on each one of those a little bit more.

In this episode: Global powers, regional hegemons, and non-state actors engaged in a perennial state of competition dominate today’s security environment. In response, the Department of Defense has adopted the competition continuum model of cooperation, competition below armed conflict, and armed conflict. The military could significantly improve its efforts to compete along this continuum and achieve national security objectives by leveraging the Women, Peace, and Security global policy framework that supports gender equality and values women’s diverse roles in global security. Read the article here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: security, competition, gender, women, economy Episode Transcript: "Enhancing US Global Competitiveness through Women, Peace, and Security" Stephanie Crider (Host) You're listening to Decisive Point. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government. I'm talking with Brenda Opperman today, associate professor in the College of Leadership and Ethics at the US Naval War College and author of “Enhancing US Global Competitiveness through Women, Peace, and Security” from the Spring 2023 issue of Parameters.   Welcome to Decisive Point, Brenda. I'm delighted to chat with you today.  Brenda Oppermann  Hi, Stephanie. Thanks so much for inviting me to speak with you today. I'm really happy to be here.  Host  Your article opens with “Women, peace and security (WPS) is a global policy framework that supports gender equality and values women's diverse roles in conflict and security.” Lay the groundwork for us, please, and explain WPS as a national security issue.  Oppermann  Thanks, Stephanie. I think a little bit of history might be helpful to understand what women peace and security is and kind of its genesis. So, in October 2000, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325 on women, peace, and security, linking gender equality and international peace and security. It also recognized the importance of women's full and equal participation in all peace and security activities, which have been, and, of course, as you know, continue to be male-dominated. Since Resolution 1325 was adopted, the WPS Framework has continued to evolve. There are now nine more WPS-related resolutions. And 100 countries have developed WPS national action plans, which is the primary mechanism to implement the framework.  In our own interests, the US adopted two national action plans. The first one was in 2011, followed by a revised what we call NAP in 2016. And then in 2017, the US passed the WPS Act of 2017, now called the WPS Act, becoming the only country in the world to codify its commitment to WPS principles. As a follow on to the Act, or required by the Act, I should say, the US also created a WPS strategy in 2019. And in 2020, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, USAID, and the Department of Homeland Security each developed a WPS implementation plan. DoD's is called the “WPS Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan.” That's a lot of words, so we call that the SFIP for short.   WPS . . . it's a national security issue since it broadens our understanding of national and global security by highlighting the role of women in the context of conflict, peace, stability, and security, as well as the impact of gender equality in creating and maintaining security and stability. So more than 15 years of research shows that countries with greater gender equality are less prone to violent conflict and are more secure and stable.  Host  Let's talk about the joint concept of integrated campaigning (JCIC). What is it, and how does it relate to this topic?  Oppermann  Yes, another mouthful.

Since achieving victory in World War II, the United States military has a less than enviable combat record in irregular warfare. This exchange provides differing perspectives on where past decisions and doctrines have led to defeat and where they may have succeeded if given more time or executed differently. This episode responds to John A. Nagl’s article, “Why America’s Army Can’t Win America’s Wars,” published in the Autumn 2022 issue of Parameters (vol. 52, no. 3). Read the review and reply here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: victory, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, irregular warfare, Landpower, World War II Episode Transcript: Review and Reply: On “Why America’s Army Can’t Win America's Wars” Stephanie Crider (Host) You're listening to Decisive Point. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government. I'm here with Alexander, special operations NCO, and Dr. John Nagle, author of “Why America's Army Can't Win America's Wars,” which was published in the Autumn 2022 issue of Parameters. Welcome to Decisive Point, gentlemen. Dr. John Nagl It's good to be here, Stephanie. Alex Thank you for having me,  Stephanie. Host John, please give us a brief recap of your original article. Nagl The article argued that the United States has a somewhat acceptable record of conventional war since it became the greatest power on Earth, sometime over the course of the Second World War. Not just the greatest power on Earth but the greatest power the world has ever seen, with a power differential unknown in human history. But it does not have a similar record in irregular wars. In fact, our absolute abject defeat with helicopters off the roof of the embassy in both Vietnam and Afghanistan. And while Iraq, arguably too soon to tell for sure, does have costs that far exceed any possible gain, I argued in the article that our record in irregular wars since we became the greatest power on Earth is 0 and 3. And I asked why that was and suggested that in the future, enemies of the United States would be very unlikely to confront us conventionally in what the Pentagon is now calling large-scale combat operations, but instead would fight us in ways where they know they have a chance of winning . . . in irregulars, wars, insurgencies, terrorism, the sort of wars that have stymied us for the last 20 years. And therefore, I argue that as the Pentagon focuses on preparing for war with China—to deter and, if necessary, to defeat China—it should spend at least a little time trying to understand why we keep losing irregular wars and more than a little time trying to make sure that we don't lose the next one. Host Alex, you took issue with John's piece. Please explain your perspective. Alex So, I really appreciated John's analysis, and I absolutely agree that we definitely need to start with why and seek understanding in that. Where I disagreed the most was with his conclusion that if a country is important enough to fight over, it is important enough to stay for generations. I think there are some conditions on that—the most important being that a cultural climate must first be gauged in order to assess how successful or worthwhile a commitment will be. The duration of the commitment really doesn't matter because if the cultural climate will not support a country's efforts in war, that country is wasting its time unless it's willing to colonize whoever it's fighting. It's like trying to grow coffee in Alaska. Unless the climate in Alaska changes to support coffee growth, you'll never be able to grow coffee there. Afghanistan was and is entrenched in tribalism and never fully developed into an industrialized nation state. Added to that,

Jody M. Prescott – "Factoring Gender into Kinetic Operations" US military practice neither considers the gendered effects of kinetic actions in the planning and executing operations nor tracks and measures them. The Department of Defense’s implementation of the Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 instead focuses on the role of women in preventing armed conflict and resolving it. The implementation of the Department of Defense’s new Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan, however, provides an opportunity to close this gap in an operationally relevant way. Read the article here. Keywords:Women, Peace, and Security (WPS), civilian harm and mitigation response (CHMR), gender, targeting, operational relevance   About the author: Colonel Jody M. Prescott (retired) served as an active-duty judge advocate for 25 years and taught at the US Army Command and General Staff College and at the US Army Military Academy. He is now a lecturer at the University of Vermont, where he teaches courses on cybersecurity law and energy law. His most recent book is Empirical Assessment in IHL Education and Training (Anthem, 2021). COL Prescott also spoke on this topic at the Women, Peace, & Security Ninth Annual Symposium hosted by the US Naval War College. His portion begins at 42:30 in this link: https://youtu.be/NTw-UeR_ibA?t=2550

In the fifth installment of the SRAD Director’s Corner, “Afghanistan: The Logic of Failing, Fast and Slow,” George Shatzer focuses on the failure of the US-led war and reconstruction campaign in Afghanistan. He reviews The Forty-year War in Afghanistan: A Chronicle Foretold by Tariq Ali and The Fifth Act: America’s End in Afghanistan by Elliot Ackerman. He brings personal experience to bear in his review, painting a picture of why the United States failed in Afghanistan and posing these failures as lessons that must be learned before the next war. The books also provide insights for strategists attempting to plan for security in the region. Read the article here. Keywords: Afghanistan, NATO, policy, strategy, logic Episode transcript: "Afghanistan: The Logic of Thinking Fast and  Slow" Stephanie Crider (Host) You're listening to Decisive Point. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army, War College, or any other agency of the US government. In your SRAD Director’s Corner series you review books of possible interest to contemporary military strategists, especially those serving in US Army and Joint positions. The spring issue contains the fifth installment of this series, and the focus is on Afghanistan. Thanks for joining us again. Colonel George Shatzer Thanks as always for having me. I enjoy discussing these important issues. (Host) Each of you articles in the series include a personal component. You have had direct experience in dealing with the issues and strategies discussed in the books you review. That’s true again with the topic of the US war in Afghanistan. Shatzer Yes, very true. I don’t claim to be an expert on Afghanistan but that country and the US war there have factored significantly in my Army career. The terror attacks of 9/11, emanating partly from Afghanistan, inspired my interest in national security and strategy and were a big part of the reason I chose to become an Army strategist in 2005. As a much younger officer then, I felt strongly that the so-called Global War on Terror should have remained centered on Afghanistan and the terror groups operating there. My views on that have changed some over the years, but the issue of our commitment to campaigning in Afghanistan remained the vital question all the way to the collapse of the campaign in 2021. And, I know we’ll take more about that later. I was also a student at the Army’s Command and General Staff College in ’05 and decided to write my master’s thesis on proxy warfare which led to me to research and write a lengthy case study on the Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980’s and the subsequent Afghan civil war that led to the development of the foreign terrorist base there. And while I would continue to follow events in Afghanistan closely, it would be another nine years before I actually served there in country. The experience was probably the most difficult of my entire career. That tour challenged me the most intellectually and was personally and professionally very trying. Host So, an easy question then – why did the US war in Afghanistan fail? Shatzer Oh boy. Joe Collins’s article in the same edition of Parameters does a great job at answering this. I offer many reasons why in my article as well. The reality is that the array of problems in Afghanistan is vast and their nature is so complex as to almost be alien to us as Americans. But if I had to select the one issue that set up the US campaign for failure it would be the mismatch in the aims of US political leaders and those of the US military. For the Department of Defense, and especially the Army as the lead service in the campaign, there was a deep-seated reluctance to fully commit to a war in Afghanistan. Even years before 9/11, the DoD and the Army actually did a fair job of examining the British and Soviet experiences in Afghanistan and c...

Policy initiatives in the Trump administration and the Biden-Harris administration significantly accelerated the Taliban victory in Afghanistan. This podcast supports the conclusion that the major factors in this defeat were the historical difficulty in governing Afghanistan, the Afghan republic’s two inefficient and corrupt governments, an ineffective US strategy, operational shortcomings by US forces, an ineffective Afghan military, Pakistan’s duplicitous policy, and the strength and determination of the Taliban. This podcast rejects the claim that the United States nation-building effort was a major factor in its defeat and concludes with a discussion of lessons encountered. Read the article here. Keywords: Afghanistan, Daoism, gender and conflict, climate change Episode transcript: "Defeat in Afghanistan: An Autopsy" Stephanie Crider (Host) The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government. You're listening to Decisive Point. I'm talking with Joseph J Collins today, a retired Army Colonel and civil servant whose service has included tours in the Army and Joint Staffs, and OSD Collins is the author of defeat in Afghanistan and autopsy. And in the spring, 2023 issue of Parameters. Welcome, Joe. Joseph J. Collins Thanks, Stephanie. With everything going on in Ukraine and worries about Taiwan, I'm glad that we can dive back into it for a bit here today. Host Let's jump right in, you noted at the beginning of your article, and I'm quoting you here, “the United States failed to accomplish its objectives, whether judged in terms of counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, or nation building. This outcome represents a significant unforced error in American National security policy.” What prices did Afghanistan and America pay In this venture? Collins You're correct. I think we failed in all of our major tests in Afghanistan. We failed overall, but in each of those tasks you mentioned, we failed in varying degrees. In counterterrorism, we finally did get bin Laden, and afterward, his successor, Ayman Zawahiri. We did prevent further attacks on our nation. But we left behind in Afghanistan a significant ISIS problem, as well as, perhaps, as many as 500 al Qaeda fighters who remain closely associated with the Taliban, Pakistan, and al Qaeda's best friend, Saraj Haqqani. A US- and UN-designated terrorist, is now the old powerful interior minister in Kabul. In the main counterinsurgency effort, US forces held their own but never decisively defeated the Taliban. We passed the baton to the Afghanistan Army in 2014, but, in the end, they lost ground, could not succeed and, finally, sensing Western abandonment or what they thought would be Western abandonment, they quit the field and nation building. We did much great work, but we were inefficient. We fostered corruptions, and our failures there were costly in the main, though I don't see nation building and the nation building effort as a significant source or cause of our defeat. There, we talked about costs. We paid a steep price—nearly 2,500 US deaths, 1,200 allied deaths, and over 25,000 wounded over a two-decade period. We spent $2 trillion on this effort when all things are considered. But with all of that, Afghans suffered much more—66,000 dead soldiers, airmen, and police officers (and) 50,000 civilians perished. Most of them at the hands of the Taliban, which is a horrible toll for a nation of not much more than 35 million people. As a result of our defeat, Afghans lost civil rights and personal freedom. The country's economy is in worse shape than ever. The clock in healthcare, education, and economic opportunity has been turned back to the terrible days of the 1990s. The women of Afghanistan are essentially under house arrest. That's a steep price for that country. Host

In this episode, Parameters acting editor-in-chief offers a preview of the upcoming Parameters Spring demi-issue and touches on what the full Spring issue will include. Keywords: Afghanistan, Daoism, gender and conflict, climate change Episode transcript: Parameters Spring 2023 Preview Stephanie Crider (Host) You’re listening to Decisive Point, a U.S. Army War College Press production focused on national security affairs. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government. I'm here with Parameters acting editor-in-chief and Strategic Studies Institute historian and researcher, Dr. Conrad Crane. Thank you for being here today, Con. Dr. Conrad Crane Oh, always glad to talk to you, Stephanie. Host Let's talk about the spring demi-issue of Parameters that's due out in the next few weeks. This issue includes a substantial piece by Afghanistan expert Joseph Collins. I hope to talk with him in detail later, but I'm curious . . . from your perspective, what does Collins bring to the Afghanistan conversation? Crane I've known Joe for a lot of years. We are at West Point together, teaching in different departments. He's a long-serving Army officer. He's been a deputy assistant secretary of defense, he’s watched Afghanistan for decades. He's written three books on it and about 40 articles. There are a few people I trust more to really analyze what went wrong in Afghanistan than Joe Collins. Host Why are you focusing this demi-issue on Afghanistan? Crane When I got my first assignment in the Strategic Studies Institute over 20 years ago, one of my first research projects was to look at the Army's response to losing in Vietnam. And I ended up doing a monograph entitled Avoiding Vietnam: The US Army's Response to Defeat in Southeast Asia, which can actually be downloaded from the SSI publications website. What I found was that, basically, the Army as an institution ran away from Vietnam. They really didn't do any systematic institutional study of the defeat. They immediately focused on the Yom Kippur War and large-scale combat operations. And what significant discussion analysis did occur in an Army venue occurred in the pages of Parameters. That's about the only place you could find it. Right now, it kind of looks like deja vu all over again. We have the service that is not doing any systematic studies that I know of of why we failed in Afghanistan. I feel that Parameters needs to step up again and become the forum for discussion about that. The service really needs to analyze what went wrong in Afghanistan, because we have never been able to never do this again. Again, we are focused on major combat operations, large-scale combat operations looking at Ukraine. But we can't just forget about Afghanistan. We need to really take a hard look at what went wrong there and get what lessons and insights we can for the future. Host So continuing the Afghanistan theme, for SRAD Directors Corner, Colonel George Shatzer plans to review and comment on two books—The Fifth Act, America's End in Afghanistan by Elliot Ackerman and The 40-Year War in Afghanistan: A Chronicle Foretold by Tariq Ali. These really round out the issue. Care to comment? Crane Let me talk about all three of the items that are going to be in this demi-issue. We’ll start with Joe. You know, Joe Collins is looking at the long-term focus on what went wrong in Afghanistan. He's going to focus on the historical difficulties in governing there the Afghan republics two inefficient corrupt governments, ineffective American strategy, operational shortcomings by American forces, an ineffective Afghan military, Pakistan's duplicitous policies, and the strength and determination of the Taliban. So he's looking at it with a very broad scope but basically from an American perspective.