Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "McInnis, Kathleen J." 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).
-
Addition of Trainers to Iraq: Background for Congress [June 16, 2015]
"Responding to recent setbacks in Iraq and Syria in the fight against the Islamic State organization (IS, aka ISIL/ISIS/Daesh), on June 10, 2015, President Obama authorized the deployment of an additional 450 troops to train, advise, and assist the Iraqi Security Forces. These U.S. forces are to join the 3,100 already in theater, which would bring the total number of U.S. forces in Iraq up to approximately 3,550. Approximately half of those additional forces would advise the 8th Iraqi Division on the use of its ground forces and help build connections between the government in Baghdad and local Sunni tribes in Anbar province. The other half are to perform logistic and force protection functions. Reflecting the shift in the campaign's center of gravity away from Mosul in northern Iraq, new troops are to be based in Anbar Province at Taqaddum, an Iraqi air base situated between Ramadi and Fallujah. This would be the fifth training site established in the counter-IS campaign; U.S. trainers are also operating out of Al-Asad, Besmaya, Irbil, and Taji. The deployments appear to be evolving into a 'lily-pad' basing footprint across the country. As of May 21, 2015, the United States spent upwards of $2.57 billion on military operations in Iraq and Syria since August 2014; the average daily cost of counter-IS operations in both Iraq and Syria was $9.0 million."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2015-06-16
-
Coalition Contributions to Countering the Islamic State [August 4, 2015]
"On September 10, 2014, President Obama announced the formation of a global coalition to 'degrade and ultimately defeat' the Islamic State (IS, aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL/ISIS or the Arabic acronym Daesh). Subsequently, some 60 nations and partner organizations agreed to participate, contributing either military forces or resources (or both) to the campaign. In Brussels in December 2014, these sixty partners agreed to organize themselves along five 'lines of effort,' (by contrast, the U.S. strategy involves nine lines of effort), with at least two countries in the lead for each: [1] Supporting military operations, capacity building, and training (led by the United States and Iraq); [2] Stopping the flow of foreign terrorist fighters (led by The Netherlands and Turkey); [3] Cutting off IS access to financing and funding (led by Italy, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States); [4] Addressing associated humanitarian relief and crises (led by Germany and the United Arab Emirates); and [5] Exposing IS' true nature (led by the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2015-08-04
-
2015 National Security Strategy: Authorities, Changes, Issues for Congress [October 1, 2015]
"The Obama Administration released a new National Security Strategy (NSS) on February 6, 2015. It was the second NSS document to be published by the Administration; the first was published in May 2010. The 2015 document states that its purpose is to 'set out the principles and priorities to guide the use of American power and influence in the world.' The NSS is a congressionally mandated document, originating in the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-433, §603/50 U.S.C §3043). The 2015 NSS emphasizes the role of U.S. leadership; the words 'lead,' 'leader,' 'leading,' and 'leadership' appear 94 times in the context of the U.S. role in the world. It also acknowledges national limitations and calls for strategic patience and persistence. The 2015 report retains much of the underlying thought of the 2010 version. However, its emphasis appears to shift away from the U.S. role in the world being largely a catalyst for action by international institutions to one that reflects more involved leadership both inside those institutions and between nations. It also takes a tougher line with both China and with Russia, while emphasizing the desirability for cooperation with both."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Lucas, Nathan J.; McInnis, Kathleen J.
2015-10-01
-
2015 National Military Strategy: Background and Questions for Congress [July 29, 2015]
"In June 2015, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued the most recent United States National Military Strategy (NMS). This NMS argues that 'revisionist states' seeking to change the existing international order (such as Russia) and non-state actors (such as the Islamic State) are creating a strategic context whereby 'global disorder has significantly increased, while some of our comparative military advantage has begun to erode.' Of note, the NMS states--for the first time in a major strategy document produced in the past 20 years--that there is a distinct possibility that the United States may find itself at war with another great power, although it notes that the probability of that actually happening is 'low but growing.'"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2015-07-29
-
Coalition Contributions to Countering the Islamic State [November 18, 2015]
"On September 10, 2014, President Obama announced the formation of a global coalition to 'degrade and ultimately defeat' the Islamic State (IS, aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL/ISIS or the Arabic acronym Daesh). Subsequently, some 60 nations and partner organizations agreed to participate, contributing either military forces or resources (or both) to the campaign. In Brussels in December 2014, these sixty partners agreed to organize themselves along five 'lines of effort,' (by contrast, the U.S. strategy involves nine lines of effort), with at least two countries in the lead for each: [1] Supporting military operations, capacity building, and training (led by the United States and Iraq); [2] Stopping the flow of foreign terrorist fighters (led by The Netherlands and Turkey); [3] Cutting off IS access to financing and funding (led by Italy, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States); [4] Addressing associated humanitarian relief and crises (led by Germany and the United Arab Emirates); and [5] Exposing IS' true nature (led by the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2015-11-18
-
What Is 'Building Partner Capacity?' Issues for Congress [December 18, 2015]
"Since 2001, successive U.S. administrations have increasingly prioritized efforts to build foreign security forces--particularly in weak and failing states--arguing that doing so advances U.S. national security objectives. In turn, the Department of Defense (DOD) has invested billions of dollars in 'Building Partner Capacity,' a term that refers to a broad set of missions, programs, activities, and authorities intended to improve the ability of other nations to achieve those security-oriented goals they share with the United States. As a consequence, these efforts and programs have been a growing focus of Congressional attention. […] The increasing emphasis that the U.S. government is placing on BPC [Building Partner Capacity] as a means to achieve strategic goals, combined with the paucity of the literature on this subject, prompted CRS to explore the historical track record of BPC efforts to help determine whether they produced outcomes consistent with U.S. strategic objectives. […] Given that U.S. leaders often argue that a BPC effort could help accomplish more than one of the above goals, determining what constitutes the 'primary' strategic objective for a given BPC effort required analytic judgment. CRS organized the cases according to public statements at the time, with particular attention paid to how leaders described the purpose of the BPC effort. Effectiveness was judged based on two criteria: whether the strategic goal was achieved, and whether the effort produced unintended consequences that were obviously and meaningfully damaging to U.S. national interests."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.; Lucas, Nathan J.
2015-12-18
-
Additional U.S. Ground Troops to Counter the Islamic State? Five Questions [March 29, 2016]
"Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dunford recently noted that both he and Secretary of Defense Carter believe there may be 'an increase to U.S. forces in Iraq in the coming weeks.' These forces would be part of Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR)--the military campaign to counter the Islamic State (IS)--which has three primary components: coordinated air strikes, training and equipping local security forces, and targeted special operations based out of northern Iraq. Proposals include the introduction of additional ground forces to secure territory once it has been retaken from the Islamic State, and the introduction of additional trainers for local security forces. However, there are no clearcut answers to determining the suitability, size, and mission profile of the ground elements of any military campaign; it is in many ways as much an art as it is a science. When evaluating proposals to introduce more ground forces for OIR, Congress may ponder five questions: 1) What Are We Trying To Accomplish?, 2) What Roles Can Ground Forces Play?, 3) Who Else Might Participate?, 4) How Many U.S. Troops Will be Required?, and 5) How Long Will Ground Operations Last?"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.; Feickert, Andrew
2016-03-29
-
Additional U.S. Ground Troops to Counter the Islamic State? Five Questions [February 17, 2016]
"Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR)--the military campaign to counter the Islamic State (IS)--has three primary components: coordinated air strikes, training and equipping local security forces, and targeted special operations based out of northern Iraq. Perceived setbacks in OIR have led some observers to maintain that inserting significant numbers of additional U.S. and/or coalition ground forces is becoming necessary. Proposals include, but are not limited to, the introduction of additional ground forces to secure territory once it has been taken back from the Islamic State, and the introduction of additional trainers for local security forces. However, there are no clear-cut answers to determining the suitability, size, and mission profile of the ground elements of any military campaign; determining the disposition of military forces is in many ways as much an art as it is a science."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.; Feickert, Andrew
2016-02-17
-
'Right-Sizing' the National Security Council Staff? [June 30, 2016]
"Currently, the main vehicle through which coordination among different U.S. government agencies on national security matters takes place is the National Security Council (NSC). As part of its defense reform deliberations, Congress is considering whether the modern National Security Council and its staff--established in 1947 to help oversee U.S. global security interests--is optimized to enable the United States to meet current and emerging threats (see CRS [Congressional Research Service] Report R44508, 'Fact Sheet: FY2017 [Fiscal Year] National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) DOD Reform Proposals', by Kathleen J. McInnis). [...] The National Security Council is the President's advisory body on matters related to national and international security. Pursuant to Title 50 U.S.C §3021, the NSC's statutory members are the President, Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Energy. Other senior officials participate in NSC deliberations at the President's request. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence are the NSC's statutory advisers. The NSC is directed by the Presidentially-appointed National Security Advisor (NSA) and supported by a National Security Staff (NSS, or NSC staff) comprising permanent employees of the Executive Office of the President and 'detailees' from other government agencies serving temporary assignments. The NSC staff, and the interagency coordination processes it oversees, are the primary Executive Branch vehicles for synchronizing policy and adjudicating policy differences across U.S. government agencies on national security matters."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2016-06-30
-
2015 National Security Strategy: Authorities, Changes, Issues for Congress [April 5, 2016]
"The Obama Administration released a new National Security Strategy (NSS) on February 6, 2015. It was the second NSS document to be published by the Administration; the first was published in May 2010. The 2015 document states that its purpose is to 'set out the principles and priorities to guide the use of American power and influence in the world.' The NSS is a congressionally mandated document, originating in the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-433, §603/50 U.S.C §3043). The 2015 NSS emphasizes the role of U.S. leadership; the words 'lead,' 'leader,' 'leading,' and 'leadership' appear 94 times in the context of the U.S. role in the world. It also acknowledges national limitations and calls for strategic patience and persistence. The 2015 report retains much of the underlying thought of the 2010 version. However, its emphasis appears to shift away from the U.S. role in the world being largely a catalyst for action by international institutions to one that reflects more involved leadership both inside those institutions and between nations. It also takes a tougher line with both China and with Russia, while emphasizing the desirability for cooperation with both."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Lucas, Nathan J.; McInnis, Kathleen J.
2016-04-05
-
Coalition Contributions to Countering the Islamic State [April 13, 2016]
"On September 10, 2014, President Obama announced the formation of a global coalition to 'degrade and ultimately defeat' the Islamic State (IS, aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL/ISIS or the Arabic acronym Da'esh). Subsequently, over 60 nations and partner organizations agreed to participate, contributing either military forces or resources (or both) to the campaign. […]Each country is contributing to the coalition in a manner commensurate with its national interests and comparative advantage. Contributions include both military and non-military assistance, although reporting on non-military contributions tends to be sporadic, as many countries donate humanitarian assistance directly to local governments or non-governmental organizations operating on the ground. Still, some illustrative examples of the kinds of bilateral counter-IS assistance countries provided as the coalition was being formed in September 2014 include: Switzerland's donation of $9 million in aid to Iraq, Belgium's contribution of 13 tons of aid to Iraq generally, Italy's contribution of $2.5 million worth of weaponry (including machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, and 1 million rounds of ammunition), and Japan's granting of $6 million in emergency aid to specifically help displaced people in Northern Iraq."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2016-04-13
-
How Big Should the Army Be? Considerations for Congress [September 2, 2016]
"The House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2017 authorized differing levels for active duty personnel in each of the services, but these authorizations diverge most significantly with respect to the Army. The Senate version of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act approved Army end strength of 460,000 soldiers, while the House version approved an Army end strength of 480,000. The Senate figure represents a decrease of 15,000 soldiers in comparison to the Army's FY2016 end strength of 475,000, while the House figure represents an increase of 5,000. […] In addition to the decision for FY2017, the debate about the size of the Army may well continue into the next Congress, as the Department of Defense plans further reductions in the size of the Army, proposing FY2018 end strength of 450,000. There will be also be a new President in January, and his or her policy priorities may revise the contours of this debate. This report provides an overview of active duty Army personnel strength changes in recent years, outlines the different end strength authorizations in the House and Senate versions of the FY2017 NDAA, highlights the perspectives which have contributed to these diverging approaches in the respective NDAAs, and outlines some factors which Congress may consider as it determines the appropriate size for the Army."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Kapp, Lawrence; Feickert, Andrew; McInnis, Kathleen J. . . .
2016-09-02
-
Coalition Contributions to Countering the Islamic State [August 24, 2016]
"On September 10, 2014, President Obama announced the formation of a global coalition to 'degrade and ultimately defeat' the Islamic State (IS, aka the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL/ISIS or the Arabic acronym Da'esh). Subsequently, over 60 nations and partner organizations agreed to participate, contributing either military forces or resources (or both) to the campaign. In Brussels in December 2014, 60 of these partners agreed to organize themselves along five 'lines of effort,' (by contrast, the United States strategy involves nine lines of effort), with at least two countries in the lead for each: (1) supporting military operations, capacity building, and training (led by the United States and Iraq); (2) stopping the flow of foreign terrorist fighters (led by The Netherlands and Turkey); (3) cutting off IS access to financing and funding (led by Italy, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States); (4) addressing associated humanitarian relief and crises (led by Germany and the United Arab Emirates); and (5) exposing IS' true nature (led by the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States)."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2016-08-24
-
Information Warfare: Russian Activities [September 2, 2016]
"Pointing to several recent high-profile events, media reports suggest that Russia is engaging in activities that some may describe as Information Warfare (IW): the range of military and government operations to protect and exploit the information environment. These alleged events include 'hacks' of servers of U.S. political parties and other groups; releases and possible manipulation of sensitive documents in an attempt to influence the upcoming U.S. presidential election; and the manipulation of publicly available information on Russian activities in Ukraine. The scale and frequency of attacks on U.S. information architecture raise issues for the United States, including whether the Department of Defense adequately conceptualizes and is organized to counter IW. [...] Tactics used to accomplish these goals include damaging information systems and critical infrastructure; subverting political, economic, and social systems; instigating 'massive psychological manipulation of the population to destabilize the society and state'; and coercing targets to make decisions counter to their interests. Recent events suggest that Russia may be employing a mix of propaganda, misinformation, and deliberately misleading or corrupted disinformation in order to do so. And while Russian organizations appear to be using cyberspace as a primary medium through which these goals are achieved, the government also appears to potentially be using the physical realm to conduct more traditional influence operations including denying the deployment of troops in conflict areas and the use of online 'troll armies' to propagate pro-Russian rhetoric."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Theohary, Catherine A.; McInnis, Kathleen J.
2016-09-02
-
2015 National Security Strategy: Authorities, Changes, Issues for Congress [February 26, 2016]
"The Obama Administration released a new National Security Strategy (NSS) on February 6, 2015. It was the second NSS document to be published by the Administration; the first was published in May 2010. The 2015 document states that its purpose is to 'set out the principles and priorities to guide the use of American power and influence in the world.' The NSS is a congressionally mandated document, originating in the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-433, §603/50 U.S.C §3043). The 2015 NSS emphasizes the role of U.S. leadership; the words 'lead,' 'leader,' 'leading,' and 'leadership' appear 94 times in the context of the U.S. role in the world. It also acknowledges national limitations and calls for strategic patience and persistence. The 2015 report retains much of the underlying thought of the 2010 version. However, its emphasis appears to shift away from the U.S. role in the world being largely a catalyst for action by international institutions to one that reflects more involved leadership both inside those institutions and between nations. It also takes a tougher line with both China and with Russia, while emphasizing the desirability for cooperation with both."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Lucas, Nathan J.; McInnis, Kathleen J.
2016-02-26
-
Security Cooperation: Comparison of Proposed Provisions for the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) [November 1, 2016]
"During the lame duck session, the 114th Congress is expected to consider various provisions in the annual defense authorization bill that address U.S. security sector cooperation. If enacted, the FY2017 [Fiscal Year 2017] National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) could significantly alter the way in which the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) engages and partners with foreign security forces. [...] Some of the proposed provisions in the FY2017 NDAA have broad appeal, while others have emerged as flashpoints in a larger debate over DOD's role in security sector assistance. The FY2017 NDAA also raises questions over whether security cooperation policy architecture is adequately structured to meet current and evolving requirements and whether the mechanisms of congressional oversight are adequately tailored to current levels of activity."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Rosen, Liana W.; McInnis, Kathleen J.; Skorupski, Bolko J. . . .
2016-11-01
-
Statutory Restrictions on the Position of Secretary of Defense: Issues for Congress [January 5, 2017]
"The proposed nomination of General (Ret.) James Mattis, United States Marine Corps (hereafter referred to as 'General Mattis'), who retired from the military in 2013, to be Secretary of Defense requires both houses of Congress to consider whether and how to suspend--or remove--a provision contained in Title 10 U.S.C. [US Code] §113 that states, 'A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.' [...] In response to the proposed nomination of General Mattis to the position of Secretary of Defense, Congress established special 'fast track' procedures governing Senate consideration of a bill or joint resolution which would suspend the existing seven-year restriction (Section 179 of the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017). Accordingly, there are at least three basic options that Congress may pursue as it considers the issue of General Mattis's nomination, [as discussed in this report]. [...] Historically, the restriction relating to the prior military service of the Secretary of Defense appears to be a product of congressional concern about preserving the principle of civilian control of the military. [...] Nearly 67 years later, the proposed nomination of General Mattis has again generated a debate amongst policymakers, scholars, and practitioners regarding what civilian control of the military means in a contemporary context, and how to best uphold that principle."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2017-01-05
-
Toward the Creation of a U.S. 'Space Force' [August 16, 2018]
"For over two decades, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and others have found that fragmentation and overlap in national security space acquisition management and oversight have contributed to program delays and cancellations, cost increases, and inefficient operations. Congress has attempted numerous organizational and acquisition reforms to address these problems. In the view of many observers, these efforts have generally been unsuccessful. In addition to these perceived managerial deficits, Congress has more recently expressed concern over the slow pace with which the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Air Force have addressed the growing threat to U.S. national security in space from adversaries, particularly Russia and China, and to a lesser extent North Korea and Iran. Some in the military and elsewhere now increasingly refer to space as a 'warfighting domain'; once seen as peaceful and uncontested, space is now viewed as crowded and adversarial."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Elsea, Jennifer K.; Kapp, Lawrence; McInnis, Kathleen J.
2018-08-16
-
North Korean Nuclear Challenge: Military Options and Issues for Congress [November 6, 2017]
"North Korea's apparently successful July 2017 tests of its intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, along with the possibility that North Korea (DPRK) may have successfully miniaturized a nuclear warhead, have led analysts and policymakers to conclude that the window for preventing the DPRK from acquiring a nuclear missile capable of reaching the United States is closing. These events appear to have fundamentally altered U.S. perceptions of the threat the Kim Jong-un regime poses to the continental United States and the international community, and escalated the standoff on the Korean Peninsula to levels that have arguably not been seen since 1994. A key issue is whether or not the United States could manage and deter a nuclear-armed North Korea if it were to become capable of attacking targets in the U.S. homeland, and whether taking decisive military action to prevent the emergence of such a DPRK capability might be necessary. Either choice would bring with it considerable risk for the United States, its allies, regional stability, and global order. Trump Administration officials have stated that 'all options are on the table,' to include the use of military force to 'denuclearize'--generally interpreted to mean eliminating nuclear weapons and related capabilities from that area. One potential question for Congress is whether, and how, to employ the U.S. military to accomplish denuclearization, and whether using the military might result in miscalculation on either side, or perhaps even conflict escalation."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.; Feickert, Andrew; Manyin, Mark E. . . .
2017-11-06
-
2018 National Defense Strategy [February 5, 2018]
"On January 19, 2018, Secretary of Defense Mattis released the unclassified summary of the Department of Defense's (DOD) first congressionally mandated National Defense Strategy (NDS). In addition to stating DOD's approach to contending with current and emerging national security challenges, the NDS is also intended to articulate the overall strategic rationale for programs and priorities contained within the FY2019-FY2023 budget requests. Overall, the document maintains that the strategic environment in which the United States must operate is one characterized by the erosion of the rules-based international order, which has produced a degree of strategic complexity and volatility not seen 'in recent memory' (p. 1). As a result, the document argues, the United States must bolster its competitive military advantage--which the NDS sees as having eroded in recent decades--relative to the threats posed by China and Russia. It further maintains that 'inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.' (p. 1)"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2018-02-05
-
2017 National Security Strategy: Issues for Congress [December 19, 2017]
"On December 18, 2017, the Trump Administration released its first National Security Strategy (NSS). The document maintains that, in addition to the threats posed to the United States by rogue regimes and violent extremist organizations that have been a central focus of national security policy since the end of the Cold War, great power rivalry and competition have once again become a central feature of the international security landscape. To advance U.S. interests effectively within this strategic context, the Administration argues, the United States must improve domestic American security and bolster economic competitiveness while rebuilding its military."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2017-12-19
-
Defense Primer: Commanding U.S. Military Operations [December 20, 2018]
From the Document: "Military operations, both in peacetime and in war, are an inherently complex undertaking. One key to success, therefore, is a clear, unified chain of command. This enables senior leaders in the U.S. government--in particular, the President and the Secretary of Defense--to command and control military forces around the world."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2018-12-20
-
'Space Force' and Related DOD Proposals: Issues for Congress [April 8, 2019]
From the Document: "Over the past year, Congress saw a variety of overlapping proposals advanced for the reorganization of U.S. military activities in space. Major proposals include [1] the creation of a Space Force (SF), a new branch of the Armed Forces under the Secretary of the Air Force; [2] the reestablishment of a U.S. Space Command as an additional unified combatant command; and [3] the establishment of a Department of Defense Space Development Agency. While few observers dispute the notion that the Department of Defense (DOD) should better organize and manage its space capabilities, agreement ends there. Some believe all three proposals should be adopted; others believe only some, if any, should become permanent institutions within DOD. Taken together, these overlapping proposals could present considerable challenges to DOD's functioning in one of the most critically important operational domains. Regardless, the concepts and details of these military spacerelated proposals remain unclear--if not contradictory--at this time, prompting fundamental questions about plans to reorganize DOD's space programs, capabilities, and agencies."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.; McCall, Stephen M.
2019-04-08
-
Evaluating Possible U.S. Troop Withdrawals from Hostile Areas [February 1, 2019]
"On December 19, 2018, President Trump announced his intention to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria within 30 days, although Administration officials subsequently suggested that the process could take several months. Subsequent press articles indicated that the White House is also considering withdrawing 'up to half' of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in the coming months, although at the time of writing the Trump Administration has stated it has not yet ordered any such withdrawal. More recently, the United States has been negotiating with Afghan Taliban representatives regarding the conditions upon which, if met, American forces might withdraw from Afghanistan. Opinions vary as whether these negotiations might lead to a successful settlement. Regardless, the suggestion that the United States might curtail its military operational commitment to those theaters raises a number of issues which may be of interest to Congress. In particular, from a strategic perspective, when is a withdrawal from a military operation appropriate?"
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2019-02-01
-
Goldwater-Nichols at 30: Defense Reform and Issues for Congress [June 2, 2016]
"Thirty years after its enactment, Congress has undertaken a review of the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act (GNA) as well as the broader organization and structure of the contemporary Department of Defense (DOD) more broadly. Most observers agree that in principle a comprehensive review of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is warranted at this juncture. Further, a broad consensus appears to exist among observers that DOD must become considerably more agile while retaining its strength in order to enable the United States to meet a variety of critical emerging national security challenges. Agreement seemingly ends there. There appears to be little consensus on what should be changed within DOD and what specific direction reform ought to take. Discussions have begun to coalesce around a number of proposals, including reforming defense acquisition processes, further strengthening the Joint Staff, reducing Pentagon staffs, and better empowering the services in the joint arena. Ideas vary, however, on how, specifically, to achieve those outcomes. Disagreement also exists as to whether or not reorganizing DOD alone will be sufficient. Some observers maintain that a reform of the broader interagency system on national security matters is needed. […] This report is intended to assist Congress as it evaluates the variety of reform proposals currently under discussion around Washington."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2016-06-02
-
U.S.-Iran Conflict and Implications for U.S. Policy [Updated May 8, 2020]
From the Document: "Since May 2019, U.S.-Iran tensions have heightened significantly, and evolved into conflict after U.S. military forces killed Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force (IRGC-QF) and one of Iran's most important military commanders, in a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad on January 3, 2020. The United States and Iran have appeared to be on the brink of additional hostilities since, as attacks by Iran-backed groups on bases in Iraq inhabited by U.S. forces have continued."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
Katzman, Kenneth; Thomas, Clayton (Analyst in Middle Eastern Affairs); McInnis, Kathleen J.
2020-05-08
-
COVID-19: Potential Implications for International Security Environment-- Overview of Issues and Further Reading for Congress [Updated May 8, 2020]
From the Summary: "Some observers argue the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic could be a world-changing event with potentially profound and long-lasting implications for the international security environment and the U.S. role in the world. Other observers are more skeptical that the COVID-19 pandemic will have such effects. Observers who argue the COVID-19 pandemic could be world-changing for the international security environment and the U.S. role in the world have focused on several areas of potential change. [...] Issues for Congress may include whether and how the COVID-19 pandemic could change the international security environment, whether the Trump Administration's actions for responding to such change are appropriate and sufficient, and what implications such change could have for the role of Congress in setting and overseeing the execution of U.S. foreign and defense policy. Congress's decisions regarding these issues could have significant and even profound implications for U.S. foreign and defense policy, and for the status of Congress as a co-equal branch relative to the executive branch in setting and overseeing the implementation of U.S. foreign and defense policy."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
O'Rourke, Ronald; McInnis, Kathleen J.; Moodie, Michael, 1948-
2020-05-08
-
COVID-19: National Security and Defense Strategy [April 30, 2020]
From the Document: "The outbreak of the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic has prompted questions about U.S. national security and crisis preparedness. Inherent to those discussions are broader, foundational questions about how the United States government conceptualizes national security, and the currently held view by many of the relative prioritization of the Department of Defense (DOD) over other instruments of national power."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2020-04-30
-
COVID-19: Potential Implications for International Security Environment -- Overview of Issues and Further Reading for Congress [Updated May 28, 2020]
From the Introduction: "Some observers argue the COVID-19 [coronavirus disease 2019] pandemic could be a world-changing event with potentially profound and long-lasting implications for the international security environment and the U.S. role in the world. Other observers are more skeptical that the COVID-19 pandemic will have such effects. This report provides a brief overview of some potential implications the COVID-19 pandemic might have for the international security environment and the U.S. role in the world, and a bibliography of CRS [Congressional Research Service] reports and other writings for further reading. Issues for Congress may include whether and how the COVID-19 pandemic could change the international security environment, whether the Trump Administration's actions for responding to such change are appropriate and sufficient, and what implications such change could have for the role of Congress in setting and overseeing the execution of U.S. foreign and defense policy. Congress's decisions regarding these issues could have significant and even profound implications for U.S. foreign and defense policy, and for the status of Congress as a co-equal branch relative to the executive branch in setting and overseeing the implementation of U.S. foreign and defense policy."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
O'Rourke, Ronald; McInnis, Kathleen J.; Moodie, Michael, 1948-
2020-05-28
-
Congress, Civilian Control of the Military, and Nonpartisanship [Updated June 11, 2020]
From the Document: "The possible use of federal armed forces as part of the U.S. executive branch's response to incidents of violence during racial justice protests has raised questions about how the military is controlled by domestic political institutions and the U.S. military's relationship with American society. Article I of the U.S. Constitution grants specific powers to Congress, making the legislative branch a key actor in governing, overseeing, and funding the U.S. military."
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service
McInnis, Kathleen J.
2020-06-11
