DEFENSE STUDIES
Ivan Eland, Director
DEFENSE STUDIES
Ivan Eland, Director
|
|
Cato's vision includes a national defense based on strategic independence, which resists military intervention unless American vital interests are at stake. The extended U.S. defense perimeter of the Cold War--now outdated--needs to be retracted. Currently, U.S. defense policy is not based on the nation's geostrategic situation. Under the direction of Ivan Eland, Cato's research work in defense is currently devoted to the following major issue areas: (1) restructuring U.S. military forces to fit the U.S. geostrategic situation and to better defend American vital interests, (2) reducing the bloated defense budget, (3) cutting unneeded or redundant weapons systems, (4) increasing funding for weapon systems that are funded inadequately. Studies "Is Readiness Overrated?: Implications for a Tiered Readiness Force Structure," by James L. George, a former congressional staff member for national security affairs. This Policy Analysis advocates a tiered readiness posture for the military--that is, some military units would be less ready for combat than others and reserve forces would used more. With no major threats on the horizon until at least 2015, explains the study, only those forces needed for crisis response or an initial response to a Major Theater War are needed. Other forces could be placed in the reserves, eliminated, or placed in an inactive "mothball" status. "National Missile Defense: Examining the Options," by Charles Peņa, an independent consultant on missile defense, and Barbara Conry, an associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute. This Policy Analysis analyzes what kind of national missile defense system the United States should have rather whether or not it should have one. After assessing the costs and benefits of land-based, sea-based, and space-based weapon systems, the study advocates a limited land-based national missile defense system like the one being developed by the Clinton administration (provided that development proceeds at a measured pace so that taxpayer dollars are not wasted on an ineffective system). "Hard Choices: Fighter Procurement in the Next Century," by Williamson Murray, Professor Emeritus, Ohio State University. The Policy Analysis criticizes the U.S. military for building three new types of fighter aircraft for over $300 billion when no potential enemies are likely to challenge the already bone-crushing air dominance of the United States. The Department of Defense should cancel two of the three fighter programs--the Air Force's F-22 and the Navy's F/A-18E/F--while continuing development of the more futuristic multi-service Joint Strike Fighter. "Tilting at Windmills: Post-Cold War Military Threats to U.S. Security," by Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute. This Policy Analysis argues that the threat to the United States from a potential peer competitor--that is, China or a resurgent Russia--is many years away. In addition, the study shows that the United States government overstates regional threats--such as, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea--because it looks at them through Cold War lenses. The only threat to U.S. security that is becoming more severe is a strike on the U.S. homeland by rogue states or terrorists using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. The study maintains that this threat can be reduced by ending unneeded and provocative U.S. military intervention abroad. "The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: The Costs Outweigh the Benefits," by Kathleen C. Bailey, an author and defense analyst. The Policy Analysis argues that a treaty that bans the testing of nuclear weapons will neither constrain the modernization of nuclear weapons by countries that already possess them nor prevent the spread of such weapons to additional states. Instead, without testing, the U.S. nuclear weapons will not be as safe or reliable as they should be. In addition, the study maintains that the U.S. Stockpile Stewardship Program, which substitutes computer simulations for the testing, is expensive and technologically risky. "Special Operations Military Training Abroad and Its Dangers," by John Rudy and Ivan Eland. This Foreign Policy Briefing argues that the Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) Program, which allows the Pentagon to deploy Special Operations Forces anywhere in the world with the ostensible primary purpose of training U.S. military personnel, is being misused. Through military-to-military contacts with the armed forces of nations throughout the world, the Pentagon is carrying out its own mini-foreign policy. Because the program trains militaries with dubious human rights records and has the potential to drag the United States into petty conflicts in remote parts of the world, the study advocates limiting the program to the exclusive purpose of training U.S. special forces personnel. "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?: The Historical Record," by Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute. The Foreign Policy Briefing documents with numerous examples the Defense Science Board's assertion that a strong correlation exists between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States. This correlation has become very important now that terrorists might be able to kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of people using nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. "Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense is to Give No Offense," by Ivan Eland, director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute. The Policy Analysis argues that changed threat environment of the post-Cold War world, the United States needs to reevaluate its outdated interventionist foreign policy. The extended U.S. defense perimeter, designed to counter perceived threats in even remote parts of the world, may actually be endangering U.S. security. With the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical technologies, rogue states and terrorist groups--the weakest members of the international system--could bring the only remaining superpower to its knees by a devastating attack on its homeland. Therefore, the study maintains that the United States should intervene overseas only when its vital interests are at stake. Events "The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down?" (RealVideo Archive) A Policy Forum with Steven P. Andreasen, National Security Council Staff; and Marshall S. Billingslea, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Staff. "The F-22 Raptor: Should It Fly or Die?" (RealVideo Archive) A Cato Institute Policy Forum featuring Lt. Gen. Gregory Martin, U.S. Air Force; Rear Adm. Eugene Carroll, Center for Defense Information; Lane Pierrot, Congressional Budget Office; Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings Institution; and Chuck Spinney, U.S. Department of Defense. "National Missile Defense: Should the United States Buy a Land- or Sea-Based System?" (RealVideo Archive) a Policy Forum with Charles Pena, Independent Consultant on Missile Defense, David Tanks, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Peter Huessy, National Defense University, and John Harvey, U.S. Department of Defense. The participants discuss the advantages and disadvantages of land- and sea-based missile defenses. "Peoples Republic of China: Red Tiger or Pink Pussy Cat?" (RealVideo Archive) a Policy Forum with Alfred Wilhelm of the Atlantic Council, Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Ross Munro from the Center for Security Studies. Discussants debated the military/nuclear threat from China in the wake of the Cox Committee's report on Chinese espionage. "Nuclear Weapons: How Low Can We Go?" (RealVideo Archive) a Policy Forum with Admiral Stansfield Turner, former Director of Central Intelligence, Michael Krepon of the Stimson Center, and Keith Payne of the National Institute for Policy. The participants discussed how large the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be. "Is Oil a Strategic Commodity?" (RealVideo Archive) a Policy Forum with Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute and Robert Copaken of the U.S. Department of Energy. The discussants debated whether oil is a strategic commodity and whether the United States should spend billions of dollars per year defending the oil fields in the Persian Gulf. Recent Policy Analyses Fixing What Ain't Broke: The Renewed Call for Conscription, by Doug Bandow, August 31, 1999. Corporate Welfare for Weapons Makers: The Hidden Costs of Pentagon Spending and Foreign Aid, by William D. Hartung, August 12, 1999. OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES: The Pentagon's East Asia Security Strategy Report, by Doug Bandow, May 18, 1999. Is Readiness Overrated? Implications for a Tiered Readiness Force Structure, by James L. George, April 29, 1999. National Missile Defense: Examining the Options, by Charles V. Peņa and Barbara Conry, March 16, 1999. Hard Choices: Fighter Procurement in the Next Century, by Williamson Murray, February 26, 1999. Tilting at Windmills: Post-Cold War Military Threats to U.S. Security, by Ivan Eland, February 8, 1999. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: The Costs Outweigh the Benefits, by Kathleen C. Bailey, January 15, 1999. The Quadrennial Defense Review: Reiterating the Tired Status Quo, by David Isenberg, September 17, 1998. Theater Missile Defense: A Limited Capability Is Needed, by Charles V. Peņa, June 22, 1998. Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense is to Give No Offense, by Ivan Eland, May 5, 1998. Recent Foreign Policy Briefings Special Operations Military Training Abroad and Its Dangers, by John Rudy and Ivan Eland, June 22, 1999. Ballistic Missile Proliferation: Does the Clinton Administration Understand the Threat? by Timothy M. Beard and Ivan Eland, February 11, 1999. Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical Record, by Ivan Eland, December 17, 1998. Subtract Unneeded Nuclear Attack Submarines from the Fleet, by Ivan Eland, April 2, 1998. Recent Articles A "Grand Deal" on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: A Faustian Bargain, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, September 16, 1999. Send the Raptor to Jurassic Park, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, July 22, 1999. Chinese Nuclear Espionage: Is the Hysteria Warranted?, Cato Daily Commentary, by Ivan Eland, June 3, 1999. Is Military Readiness Overrated?, by James L. George Cato Daily Commentary, May 27, 1999. The War Against Serbia: Illusion Versus Reality, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, May 3, 1999. Kosovo Intervention Highlights European Free Riding, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, April 28, 1999. Missile Defenses and East Asian Security, by Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Daily Commentary, April 7, 1999. Overkill from the Air, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, April 5, 1999. The United States as Global Cop: Arresting Consequences, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, February 26, 1999. A Foreign Policy for Terrorists, by Doug Bandow, Cato Daily Commentary, February 20, 1999. Holiday Cheer at the Pentagon, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, January 8, 1999. A Military Budget for a Republic, by Doug Bandow, Cato Daily Commentary, December 17, 1998. Professionalizing the PLA, by Doug Bandow, Cato Daily Commentary, October 28, 1998. The U.S. Government is Endangering American Citizens, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, September 25, 1998. Hike Military Funding? Lining the Pockets of the Defense Bureaucracy, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, September 23, 1998. Terrorism: Cohen's Terrifying Trade-Off, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, September 2, 1998. Oil is no Reason to Stay in the Persian Gulf, by John Charles Bradbury, Cato Daily Commentary, August 27, 1998. The U.S. Military: Overextended Overseas, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, July 24, 1998. Catastrophic Terrorism: Clinton is Missing the Point, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, July 13, 1998. Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia: Coping with the Inevitable, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, July 2, 1998. Washington's Nonproliferation Hysteria, by Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Daily Commentary, June 18, 1998. No to NATO Expansion: Good Arguments Fall on Deaf Ears, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, April 3, 1998. Creating a Cold Peace by Expanding NATO, by Gary Hart and Gordon Humphrey, Cato Daily Commentary, March 20, 1998. NATO Expansion: Folly on Stilts, by Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato Daily Commentary, March 13, 1998. What's Ahead for NATO?, by Doug Bandow, Cato Daily Commentary, March 11, 1998. Proposed new NATO Members Are "Unfinished Democracies" Cato Daily Commentary, March 6, 1998. The Best Defense Is No Offense, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, February 19, 1998. The Costs of NATO Expansion, by Ivan Eland, Cato Daily Commentary, February 3, 1998. Cold War is Over, So Trim the Military, by Doug Bandow Cato Daily Commentary, January 6, 1998. Upcoming Activities Book U.S. Security Policy: Back to Basics, by Ivan Eland, Cato's director of defense policy studies. The book will argue that the United States must go back to square one in formulating its security policy. Since the advent of the Cold War, the U.S. interventionist foreign policy and the extended defense perimeter that supports it have no grounding in the U.S. geostrategic situation or the defense of the nation's vital interests. The book maintains that in a post-Cold War world, a reevaluation of such policies would lead to a more restrained foreign policy and a smaller military. Studies "The United States Should Begin Working on a New Bomber Now," by Williamson Murray, Professor Emeritus, Ohio State University. Murray will argue that the Air Force is investing too much in two tactical fighter aircraft--the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter--at the expense of bombers. The service is doing so at a time when overseas air bases near the military--front upon which fighters depend --are increasingly unavailable or are becoming vulnerable to enemy attack by ballistic missiles. Bombers can deliver greater payloads than fighters and have the longer range necessary to operate from less vulnerable bases farther from the front. Yet the bomber force is being allowed to decay. According to Murray, the Air Force should cancel the F-22 and use some of the savings to begin development of a new bomber. "Imperial Overstretch: Washington's Dubious Strategy to Overthrow Saddam Hussein," by David Isenberg. Isenberg is an analyst at a private firm that specializes in advising the U.S. government on national security issues. Isenberg argues that U.S. attempts to overthrow Saddam have been unblemished by success in the past and are unlikely to succeed in the future. In fact, if such attempts lead to a break up of Iraq or a more radical regime, they could be counterproductive. Because Saddam's threat to the Persian Gulf region has been overstated, Isenberg maintains that the United States should be content to take only limited actions to monitor and constrain Saddam's military capabilities. "Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention: Illusory Benefits and Nasty Side Effects," by Eric R. Taylor, Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of Southwestern Louisiana. Taylor will argue that creating an enforcement mechanism for the convention will not stem the proliferation of biological weapons and will probably lead to the compromise of proprietary information from U.S. businesses.
|
