Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Looks at the Coalition Provisional Authority's efforts to rebuild Iraq's security sector and provides lessons learned.

Preemptive attack (Military science) --- Anticipatory self-defense (Military science) --- Preemption (Military science) --- Preemptive strikes (Military science) --- Preemptive warfare --- Civil defense -- Iraq. --- Law enforcement -- Iraq. --- National security -- Iraq. --- Police -- Iraq. --- Security sector -- Iraq. --- Security sector --- Air defenses, Civil --- Civilian defense --- Defense, Civil --- Protection of civilians --- USA--NATIONAL SECURITY --- Civil defense --- National security --- Law enforcement --- Police --- Enforcement of law --- Criminal justice, Administration of --- Emergency preparedness --- Defensive (Military science) --- Public safety --- #SBIB:327.5H10 --- #SBIB:328H59 --- Homeland security sector --- Internal security sector --- National security sector --- Public administration --- Strategie: algemeen --- Instellingen en beleid: andere Aziatische landen --- Water-supply --- Water use --- Water resources development --- Use of water --- Utilization of water --- Water --- Water utilization --- Utilization --- United States --- Military policy. --- Defenses. --- Military art and science --- Strategy --- Homeland defense --- Homeland security --- E-books --- Policing --- Education, Preschool --- Early childhood education --- Economic aspects --- Cost effectiveness.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

A team of U.S. and international experts assesses the impact of various nations' airpower efforts during the 2011 conflict in Libya, including NATO allies and non-NATO partners, and how their experiences offer guidance for future conflicts. In addition to the roles played by the United States, Britain and France, it examines the efforts of Italy, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Qatar, the UAE, and the Libyan rebels.

Air power -- History -- 20th century. --- Air power -- History -- 21st century. --- Libya -- History -- Civil war, 2011- -- Aerial operations. --- Libya -- History -- Civil war, 2011- -- Campaigns. --- Air power --- History --- Libya --- Aerial operations. --- Campaigns. --- Air superiority --- Military power --- Lībiyā --- Jamāhīrīyah al-ʻArabīyah al-Lībīyah al-Shaʻbīyah al-Ishtirākīyah --- Libyan Arab Jamahiriya --- Jamahiriya arabe libyenne --- Libyen --- Libia --- Livii︠a︡ --- Popular Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahiriya --- Libië --- Socialist People's Arab Jamahiriya --- Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya --- Luv --- Libye --- Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire socialiste --- Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya --- Gran Jamahiriya araba libica socialista popolare --- SPLAJ --- G.S.P.L.A.J. --- GSPLAJ --- Jamāhīrīyah al-ʻUẓmá --- Jamahiriya al-Arabiya al-Libiya al-Shabiya al-Ishtirakiya al-Uzma --- Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Republic --- Grande Jamahiriya arabe populaire socialiste libyenne --- Mamlakah al-Lībīyah al-Muttaḥidah --- Grand Jamahiriya arabe libyenne populaire socialiste --- Aeronautics, Military --- Military readiness --- Air warfare --- Jamahiriya Arab Libyan Popular Socialist --- State of Libya --- Dawiat Libiya --- リビア --- Ribia --- ليبيا --- לוב --- Airpower --- Luftmagt --- Borgerkrig

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

"Developing innovative means to go "over not through" national strategic challenges has long been central to the Air Force's contribution to American security. In recent months, however, U.S. Air Force (USAF) senior leaders have raised the questions of whether the service is sufficiently innovative today and what can be done to make it more innovative for the future. This report assesses historical cases of Air Force innovation or apparent failure to innovate. These case studies include innovations in strategic reconnaissance (1946-1972), nuclear survivability (1950-1960), suppression of enemy air defenses (1975-1985), and precision strategic attack (1990-1999). Cases of apparent failure to innovate include close air support after World War II (1946-1951), early efforts to defeat Soviet integrated air defenses (1960-1970), and airborne high-value targeting in the post-Cold War era (1900-2001)"--Publisher's website

Aeronautics, Military --- Aerial reconnaissance --- Air defenses --- Close air support --- Technological innovations --- United States.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Every few years, the Air Force develops the Strategic Environment Assessment (AFSEA). The 2016 AFSEA is a 30-year look into the future for Air Force planning. As part of this process, Air Force asked RAND researchers to identify plausible futures based on nine trends in the categories of Geopolitical, Military & Warfare, and Human & Workforce to assist Air Force strategic planning in developing the AFSEA. The RAND team generated a range of future projections based on each of these trends and then convened a collaborative structured workshop to identify important interactions between these trends and to develop a set of future worlds during a 30-year time frame to assist the Air Force during the AFSEA. The workshop was a two-day event during which the RAND trend experts (1) presented their trend assessments and plausible futures; (2) conducted a cross-consistency analysis to look for any combinations of futures that they felt would be inconsistent with each other; (3) identified "interesting pairings" of futures; and (4) developed future worlds using different combinations of trend futures. The purpose of the workshop was to create a set of future worlds that represented diverse contexts and potential challenges for the Air Force to consider. This report presents the results of that workshop.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The U.S. Department of Defense has been increasingly focused on competition with Russia and China and, in the extreme, the possibility of great power war. To inform thinking about what might follow such a war, RAND researchers generated four hypothetical near-term great power war scenarios and assessed how the postwar strategic environment would change in each scenario. These scenarios offer planners and decisionmakers plausible narratives about future great power wars with different features to help them examine assumptions and think about how wartime choices could affect postwar U.S. objectives. The scenarios in this report illustrate the complex relationships between wartime and postwar goals. They show how a U.S. victory could provoke a stronger alignment between China and Russia or lead to greater determination and hostility in the recently defeated adversary. A U.S. defeat, meanwhile, could enhance U.S. efforts to recruit allies and partners, while also increasing the likelihood of nuclear proliferation among U.S. allies and partners. Indeterminate war outcomes could heighten the risk of a quick return to conflict while sapping alliance cohesion. The complexity and variability of these results highlight the importance for U.S. policymakers of considering postwar outcomes in prewar planning.