Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "Deni, John R." in: author
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Current Russia Military Affairs: Assessing and Countering Russian Strategy, Operational Planning, and Modernization
From the Editor's Note: "This compendium of essays is based on the presentations delivered at a one-day workshop sponsored jointly by the U.S. Army War College and the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) with additional funding generously provided by the U.S. Army War College Foundation. The invitation-only event by was held on May 1, 2018 at the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC and included North American and European experts from the policy making community, academica, think tanks, the intelligence community, and the military services. These individuals gathered together to address Russia's geopolitical strategy, its operational capacity and capabilities, and its military modernization efforts, all in an effort to inform EUCOM and U.S. Department of Defense planning as well as strengthen allied deterrence in Europe."
Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute
Deni, John R.
2018-07
-
Real Rebalancing: American Diplomacy and the Tragedy of President Obama's Foreign Policy
"American security policy rests on a three-legged stool consisting of defense, diplomacy, and development. As President Barack Obama implied in his May 2014 speech at West Point, New York, the United States is in the midst of a resurgence of diplomacy and development, as it seeks to leverage diplomatic influence, foreign aid, and multilateral institutions to solve the most vexing international security challenges. However, the dramatic rebalance toward diplomacy and development over the last several years has largely failed. Rhetoric, official strategies, and actual policies have all aimed at rebalancing the three legs of the foreign policy stool. However, several factors point to a continued militarization of U.S. foreign policy, including funding levels, legal authorities, and the growing body of evidence that civilian agencies of the U.S. Government lack the resources, skills, and capabilities to achieve foreign policy objectives. Continued reliance by senior decisionmakers at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue on the U.S. military in the development, planning, and implementation of U.S. foreign policy has significant implications. Foremost among them is the fact that the military itself must prepare for a future not terribly unlike the very recent past."
Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute
Deni, John R.
2015-10-26
-
Military Engagement and Forward Presence: Down But Not Out as Tools to Shape and Win
From the Summary: "Reliance on precision strike stand-off capabilities and a strategy of surging American military might from the continental United States (CONUS) after a crisis has already started have become particularly attractive approaches for managing insecurity in a more resource-constrained environment. However, the security challenges facing the United States and its vital interests over the coming years require more than a retreat to 'Fortress America.' Relying on stand-off capabilities and surge readiness cannot provide adequate deterrence or reassurance, promote effective regional security, or build the capability and interoperability necessary to succeed in combined military operations at reasonable cost, and will have the effect of reducing, not expanding, options available to any President. Mitigating the security challenges of tomorrow necessitates investment in a more effective and more efficient set of tools."
Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute
Deni, John R.
2016-01
-
NATO Missile Defense and the European Phased Adaptive Approach: The Implications of Burden-Sharing and the Underappreciated Role of the U.S. Army
"The 2010 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) decision to expand its ballistic missile defense program was somewhat surprising for several reasons, including lukewarm European public support for ballistic missile defense and tightening defense budgets on both sides of the Atlantic. Nevertheless, the Alliance has moved forward, with a significant expansion of its ballistic missile defense program, stating its intent to defend all European member state territory and populations, and declaring at the Chicago summit in 2012 that the Alliance had achieved an interim capability. The reasons for the Alliance decision in 2010 were several, but critical among them was the U.S. Government's offer to include the new European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA), announced by the Barack Obama administration in September 2009, as the centerpiece of the NATO ballistic missile defense program. For cash-strapped European members of the Alliance eager to influence NATO's ballistic missile defense efforts but unable to devote funds on par with the United States, Washington's proposal to include the EPAA framework in an expansion of the Alliance missile defense effort comprised an offer too attractive to refuse. […] However, few have actually contributed tangible ballistic missile defense assets to date in terms of missile interceptors, radars or other sensors, or ballistic missile defense-related platforms. Given differing threat perceptions and declining defense budgets, it seems very likely that tangible Alliance contributions, in the form of sensors and interceptors in particular, will remain minimal over the next decade."
Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute
Whitmore, Steven J.; Deni, John R.
2013-10
-
New Realities: Energy Security in the 2010s and Implications for the U.S. Military [February 2015]
This is an edited volume of "New Realities: Energy Security in the 2010s and Implications for the U.S. Military" that was published in January of 2014. The January 2014 edition is available through the Homeland Security Digital Library and can be found at: https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=747735. The chapters in this February 2015 edited volume come from presentations at the New Realities: Energy Security in the 2010s and Implications for the U.S. Military conference that was held in Washington, D.C. in November of 2013. From the Foreword: "Global energy markets are undergoing dramatic shifts. Developing countries are beginning to outpace their more developed counterparts in energy demand, the result not simply of higher economic growth rates in the former, but also due to increased efficiency in the latter. Traditional producers of hydrocarbons in places such as Latin America, Eurasia, North Africa, and the Middle East face a host of political, economic, technical, and societal challenges that could potentially lead to major disruptions in the global energy supply. Meanwhile, the unconventional fossil fuels revolution has led to major changes in the flow of the global energy supply, seemingly overnight. All of these changes will have implications for U.S. security generally and the U.S. military specifically. Evolving energy-based U.S. national interests in Africa or the Middle East may shape the degree to which the U.S. military becomes involved in political or humanitarian crises in those regions. Tightening energy supplies may alter fundamentally the way in which the United States wields military force in a contingency operation. And closer to home, increasingly vulnerable domestic energy infrastructure may undermine military installation operations and security."
Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute
Deni, John R.
2015-02
-
Strategic Insights: Is the European Union Really That Important to U.S. Security Interests?
"Questioning long-held assumptions and challenging existing paradigms in U.S. security policy can be a useful way to ensure that American leaders are not pursuing strategies that do not 'actually' support and promote U.S. interests. However, on the question of whether the European Union's (EU) existence is in U.S. interests, the evidence is consistently clear. It most definitely is, and undermining it-for example, by promoting Brexit or suggesting other countries would or should follow the United Kingdom's (UK) exit from the EU-risks the further unraveling of the international order that is central to American prosperity and security. As scholars have known for some time, officials and decision-makers are typically reluctant to abandon long-held beliefs or theories about the world around them.2 When most officials are confronted with new information or data that challenges their worldview, they are likely to try to ignore it, dismiss it, or fit it into their existing notions and theories about how the world works. This kind of cognitive bias-known as confirmation bias-can have disastrous consequences for international security and of course for U.S. foreign policy, often because it can make officials blind to gathering storm clouds. For this reason, periodically questioning the central tenets of one's understanding of the world is critically important. Just because there has been a long-standing consensus on a given policy or strategy does not necessarily mean it should command blind adherence or loyalty forever."
Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute
Deni, John R.
2017-03-09
-
Strategic Insights: Strategic Implications of Brexit
This is an article composed by Dr. John R. Deni from the Strategic Insights Institute. From the introduction: "The momentous decision of British voters to leave the European Union (EU) is already having major repercussions in both economics and politics. In the former, investors fled uncertainty for more stable opportunities, while in the latter there are already calls for another Scottish independence referendum. In the worlds of defense and security, the implications are less clear, at least in the short run. What appears far more certain though is that the economic and political implications are likely to have profound long-term effects on NATO, U.S. national security, and the U.S. Army's relationship with one of America's closest allies. In response, and in order to mitigate the most damaging effects of the Brexit vote, the United States needs to intensify military cooperation with a longstanding UK [United Kingdom] rival - namely, France."
Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute
Deni, John R.
2016-06-24
-
Future of American Landpower: Does Forward Presence Still Matter? The Case of the Army in the Pacific
"The time has come for a reappraisal of the U.S. Army's forward presence in East Asia, given the sig¬nificantly changed strategic context and the extraor¬dinarily high, recurring costs of deploying U.S. Army forces from the 50 states for increasingly important se¬curity cooperation activities across the Indo-Asia-Pa¬cific theater. For economic, political, diplomatic, and military reasons, the Indo-Asia-Pacific theater con¬tinues to grow in importance to the United States. As part of a broad, interagency, multifaceted approach, the U.S. military plays a critical role in the rebalancing effort now underway. The U.S. Army in particular has a special role to play in bolstering the defense of allies and the deterrence of aggression, promoting regional security and stability, and ameliorating the growing U.S.-China security dilemma. In particular, military security cooperation pro¬grams are becoming increasingly important for achiev¬ing U.S. security goals. These military-to-military pro¬grams and activities are designed to shape the security environment; prevent conflict through deterrence, as¬surance, and transparency; and build operational and tactical interoperability. As wartime requirements decrease in the coming year following the end of ex¬tensive American involvement in Afghanistan and as the U.S. military undergoes a dramatic yet historically typical post-war drawdown, security cooperation activities will comprise the primary way in which a leaner U.S. military contributes to broad American national security objectives in the next decade."
Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute
Deni, John R.
2014-06
-
Special Commentary: After COVID-19: American Landpower in Transatlantic Context
From the Document: "Over the last month, an array of analysts and experts has attempted to ascertain what the post-pandemic world might look like from strategic, policy, or institutional perspectives. Several of these assessments feature dramatic predictions of a new world unlike what existed just months ago. It's reasonable to expect change following a global crisis, but the near breathlessness detectable in some of these analyses evinces a lack of nuance or an appreciation for stasis. Moreover, few of these or other analyses have addressed the implications in a transatlantic context, or suggested specific mitigation steps. This brief essay reflects a more balanced attempt to fill these gaps, identifying recommendations for the US Army and Department of Defense to leverage the crisis and mitigate the damage across the transatlantic community."
Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute
Deni, John R.
2020-05-01
1
