| Course: 17.40s | Date: July 19-23, 2004 | Tuition: $3,000 |
The savage attacks of September 11, 2001 have given sharp focus to American security policy. There is an intense search for the technologies and tactics that will be effective in the fight against the terrorists and their supporters. There is new military interest in acquiring serious homeland defense capabilities to match a longstanding military interest in acquiring force projection capabilities. And there is a worldwide call for assistance in the effort to breakup the networks that finance and maintain those who attacked the United States. Resources once thought limited now flow freely to the armed services, other protective agencies, and defense contractors. There is a renewed spirit of national service that reflects the importance of the task at hand. But the war against terrorism has not eliminated the need to restructure the American military for the world beyond the Cold War. The attacks gave American forces a clear, new mission ---find and destroy al Qaeda ---- but not clear guidance on how to plan for the challenges of the new century.
The list of international problems is long. The human chaos produced by failing states, civil wars, and ethnic conflict calls out for attention. So too do the dangers posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction made seemingly inevitable by the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the spread of industrial capabilities to much of the Third World. And then there is the threat of regional tyrants who seek to gain control of vital resources to enhance their power. In reaction, the U.S. can pull back, collaborate selectively with others, lead worldwide coalitions, or take on alone the burdens most nations shun. Domestic politics and the media will help shape the decision. Which option will the nation choose and with what implications for the force structure of the armed services and the defense policies of allies including the several that took strong action against the invasion of Iraq?
A revolution in military affairs is supposedly upon us. How much substance is hidden by the hype? What are real sources of military power? Some argue that we are lifting the fog of war. Can the armed services develop the doctrine, joint or otherwise, that will maintain their combat advantage well into the next century? How do innovations occur in the military? How much can we learn from the experience of business, U.S. military history or that of other militaries in planning for the future?
The Cold War ended quietly and decisively, but not without creating additional uncertainties. Many who were in power in the Soviet block remain active in the political life of the new nations that replaced it. Collapsed empires create power vacuums. Will oppression return to Russia? Will Russia's fears cause it to build a network of dependent nations on its borders? Will China become the peer competitor to the United States? Of what consequence is the arms race under way in Asia? How can we deal with the "Ring of Fire," the term that some use to describe the arc from the Balkans to Korea?
Which nations will step forward to claim a major role in world affairs in the 21st Century? Will the EU be our partner or rival? What signs should one look for before sounding the alarm about a rival? What are the technological trends that should be watched? How can the exaggeration of salesmen be avoided? What does nuclear deterrence mean today? What should the allocation be between strategic offensive and defensive forces? Do we need missile defenses?
Corporations specializing in defense technologies must find their own way in a maze of policies. The armed services are confused about their own future and give ambiguous guidance. Politicians do not extend their perspectives beyond the next election. There are many technological opportunities, but few have an assured future. Waves of privatization and mergers create the appearance of direction, but still leave open the long-term strategy individual businesses are to pursue. There will be a defense budget and a national strategy, but what will be their shape? And what will the U.S., Japanese and European defense industries look like in the first decades of the 21st Century?
Members of the MIT program that study international security will share their insights with you on these issues during this intense and interactive week-long course which is intended for executives, public officials and military officers from around the world who need to understand the future of American security policy and who are expected to lead innovation within their own organizations.
OUTLINE OF THE PROGRAM
MONDAY
Course Overview: Innovation and National Grand Strategies, Military Organizations,
The Causes of War, American Civil-Military Relations
The course will focus on the factors that determine corporate and national strategies
for defense in the Age of Terror. The first day's sessions will discuss national
grand strategies. They will explore the historical record and the link between
grand strategies and the causes of war. The choices facing America and the factors
that are likely to influence America's strategic policy will be described. The
latter include: civil-military relations, the role of the media, technological
trends, and the likely contribution of allies and international organizations
to stability. Also included in the first day is an examination of competing
theory of military innovation --- change that reshapes how wars are fought.
TUESDAY
Areas of Tension: Budgets, Force Structure Analysis; Asian security issues;
Failed states and humanitarian interventions; Terrorism.
The second day will begin with an analysis of budgetary problems. There are
never enough resources for security. How then to analyze and prioritize? Then
we will begin our analyses of warfare areas. The topic today will be air operations
including strike warfare. The discussion will consider technological opportunities
and constraints, organizational interests, and the likelihood of significant,
rapid change in air warfare. The important questions are whether or not the
U.S. can construct the right forces and whether or not it can formulate an effective
air campaign to keep its traditional advantage in air operations.
WEDNESDAY
Privatization of Defense: The Public and Private Roles in Weapons Design,
Development and Production; The Future of the Defense Industries in the United
States, Japan and Europe; Can Ground Operaions be transformed?
The development and production of U.S. weapons has been centered in the private
sector since the Second World War. The morning session examines the causes of
the shift from public arsenals to private firms in the acquisition of weapons,
current pressures for additional privatization (including such areas as logistics
and base management) and the problems privatization causes in periods of budgetary
downturns. The session will also examine the structure of the aerospace and
naval shipbuilding industries in the U.S. Europe, and Japan and the problems
of conversion, sustainment, and innovation. It will describe corporate strategies
and the likely future of the defense industries. Topics covered include merger
and acquisition; joint projects; national and international consortia and re-nationalization,
and innovation theory and strategies to promote technical and doctrinal breakthroughs.
In the afternoon the future of ground operations is the topic. We examine the
effort to transform the US Army from its focused mission of the Cold War to
the varied tasks and problems it has encountered in the Balkans, Afghanistan,
and Iraq.
THURSDAY
EU/NATO/US Relations; An European Challenge to US Policies; Multilateral
Versus Unilateral Approches, Naval Operations: Trends in Naval Operations; Undersea
Warfare; NetCentric Warfare
The Fourth day will begin with an analysis of US/European relations and
will consider strains cased by the Iraq War, EU unity, the European Rapid Deployment
Force, US forces in Europe, and the future of NATO. The morning session will
examine US need for and ability to obtain allies in its post Cold War role as
the most powerful and active nations in the world. The afternoon session will
be devoted to trends in naval weapons, the role of seabased forces in US strategy,
and the viability of netcentric concepts in future warfare.
FRIDAY
Ballistic Missile Defenses on the Battlefield and at Home; America's Recent
and Future Wars; Surviving a Long Peace; Avoiding Surprise; Revisiting the Defense
Budget
Technological progress in weapons is inevitable. So too is the spread of
technological knowledge. What do these truths mean for ballistic missile defense?
Are the opportunities different for theater defenses than for national defenses?
The last morning session will examine the long and troubled history of missile
defense. At lunch we seek the policy lessons. War has a future. The question
is how much of this future involves the United States? Defense organizations
and firms dependant upon military business need to think of ways that they can
cope with an uncertain security environment. This wrap-up session will explore
recent U.S. military experience, the likely range of future combat for America
and the ways in which the nation, its military services, and the defense firms
can avoid surprise of both the strategic and tactical varieties.
Enrollees should note that there are course hosted receptions and dinners on Monday and Wednesday evenings and a special lunch session on Friday. Participants will be given opportunities to describe their own organizationís special issues at some of these sessions. Others will feature guest speakers. Participants are encouraged to ask questions and offer comments based on their experience at each of the courseís sessions.
ABOUT THE PRESENTERS
Presenters are faculty members in the MIT Security Studies Program, an interdisciplinary research and educational program in strategic studies. Several have had experience in government, public service and/or corporate consulting and all have published extensively on defense topics.
Owen R. Cote, Jr. is a Principal Research Scientist and Associate Director of the MIT Security Studies Program, a specialist in U.S. defense policy, modern war, and military innovation.
Barry Posen is Ford professor of International Relations in the Political Science Department at MIT and a specialist in grand strategy, military innovation and NATO.
Harvey M. Sapolsky is Professor of Public Policy and Organization at MIT and Director of the MIT Security Studies Program. He is a specialist in American civil/military relations, weapon acquisition issues and defense management.
Stephen Van Evera is Professor of Political Science at MIT and one of the nation's leading international relations theorists, and a well-known specialist in the causes of war.
Cindy Williams is a Principal Research Scientist in the MIT Security Studies Program. She was formerly at RAND, MITRE, and the Congressional Budget Office.
George Lewis is a Principal Research Scientist and Associate Director of the MIT Security Studies Program. A physicist by training, he is a long time student of missile defense.
*A limited number of 1/2-tuition scholarships are available to full-time teaching staff (rank of instructor or higher) of other US educational institutions. Written requests for such scholarships should accompany applications for admission.
To apply on-line, go to the MIT Professional
Institute