Joint Military Operations Term Paper: Logistics Operations in a Region with No Previous U.S. Military Presence

1998 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell A. Baum ◽  
Jr
2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-911
Author(s):  
Yvan Guichaoua

Abstract This article studies the bitter diplomatic sequence arising in the fall of 2019 between France and the Sahelian countries where France has been conducting military operations since 2013. Far from being just one more hiccup in the troubled relations between France and its former colonies, the article interprets this sequence as a constitutive effect of French protracted military presence in the Sahel. Specifically, it argues that although France has a rather clear security-driven agenda, its operational moves produced by bureaucratic thinking are questioned by influential sections of Sahelian public opinions who frame the French military presence as a deeply political issue over their country's sovereignty. In addition, being the de facto military guarantor of the security of Sahelian regimes, France constrains the domestic political conversation through the ‘red lines’ it imposes on actors. This externally-induced distortion of the domestic political landscape eventually places Sahelian authorities in front of a dilemma. Pleasing their foreign patrons might cost them the support of the section of public opinion most attached to national sovereignty, and expose them to nationalist entrepreneurs.


Author(s):  
D. S. Magomedov

The article examines the place of African countries in the US counter-terrorism strategy under the administrations of G.W. Bush and B. Obama. It is alleged that at the turn of the 2010-s the significance of this trend has increased due to the intensification of Islamists in the countries of West Africa and the new round of the civil war in Somalia. This led to an intensification of the military presence and tightened cooperation with the allies, on which the Americans also sought to entrust the main struggle against the radicals. There are several directions of counterterrorism policy: the provision of technical assistance to partner countries for the development of special forces; the building of subregional mechanisms for coordinating counter-terrorism actions; intensification of cooperation in the financial sphere; carrying out separate military operations, mainly by UAV forces. In the end, itwas the African direction that turned out to be the most successful example of Obama’s “leading from the behind” strategy. Despite the fact that under the influence of the Arab Spring and the rise of the ISIS in the Middle East in 2011-2014, there was an escalation of violence in the region, in general, the main goals of combating Islamist terrorism by the end of 2016 were achieved by the USA. In Somalia, Nigeria and Libya, Americans relied on the local forces concerned, restricting participation by coordinating allies, providing intelligence and striking individual blows. The French intervention in Mali in 2013 enabled the Europeans to shift the main burden of fighting local Islamists. In addition, Egypt, receiving abundant military assistance from the United States, did not allow the expansion of the ISIS’s zone of operations in the Sinai Peninsula, but it was not possible to fully cope with the small local branch due to the instability of relations with local tribes that remain outside the control of the central government.


Nordlit ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rune Ottosen

Through two case studies, this article will explore how Norwegian news media framed the Norwegian military presence in Syria. Earlier research by the author has shown how the legal aspects of NATO’s out-of-area operations have been ignored by mainstream media. In this study, emphasis will be put on self-censorship among Norwegian journalists, ignoring the fact that Norwegian special forces took part in military operations inside Syria from May 2017 to March 2018. The hypothesis based on Johan Galtung’s (2002) theory of peace journalism is that mainstream media refused to see the connection between Norway’s bombing of Libya and the escalation of the ‘civil war’ in Syria. According to legal experts, the Norwegian military presence in Syria was a violation of international law, as it supported rebel groups in armed confrontation with the Assad government, recognized by the Norwegian state through diplomatic relations. The hypothesis of the study—based on an explorative investigation of selected Norwegian news media—is that Norwegian politicians, silently supported by the media, have changed basic principles of Norwegian security policy without an open public debate. Before 1999, Norway was a loyal NATO member based on the notion that NATO was a ‘defense alliance’. After the change in NATO strategy to the new out-of-area policy, Norway has in practice become a ‘military tool’ in the geopolitical strategy of the US. This change of policy has, to a large extent, happened without critical investigation by mainstream media. The article presents two case studies of how Norwegian media dealt with the legal issues when Norway was asked to contribute in Syria, and how the Norwegian military presence was reported by Norwegian media in the periods December 2015 to January 2016, as well as May 2017 to March 2018.


Author(s):  
Caleb Karges

The War of the Spanish Succession was a large military conflict that encompassed most of western and central Europe spawning additional fighting in the Americas and the world’s oceans. Hostilities began with the invasion of Lombardy by imperial forces in 1701 and were concluded be the treaties of Utrecht (1713), Rastatt, and Baden (1714). The trigger for the war was the long-anticipated death of the childless King Charles II of Spain in 1700 and his will, which ignored several partition treaties signed by other powers and passed the entirety of the Spanish monarchy to Louis XIV of France’s grandson, Philip, Duke of Anjou (Philip V of Spain). The Austrian Habsburgs under Emperor Leopold I contested the will on the behalf of his second son the Archduke Charles (Charles VI of the Holy Roman Empire). With the European balance of power jeopardized by the prospect of a Bourbon succession in Spain, the Kingdom of England (Great Britain after 1707) and the United Provinces joined the Holy Roman Emperor in forming the Grand Alliance in 1702. The Grand Alliance, heretofore referred to as the Allies, expanded to consist ultimately of the emperor of and the states of the Holy Roman Empire (with a few notable exceptions), Great Britain, the United Provinces, Portugal, and the Duchy of Savoy-Piedmont. The pro-Bourbon alliance opposing the Grand Alliance consisted of France, Spain, the Electorate of Bavaria, and the Archbishopric of Cologne. The main military operations largely occurred along the frontiers of France and in the Spanish possessions in Europe such as the Spanish Netherlands, Italy, and the Iberian Peninsula. Of notable exception were the Bavarian campaigns in 1703 and 1704. Throughout the war, each side tried to exploit real and potential revolts/insurgencies in the other’s territory. The Allies maintained a large military presence in Catalonia and set up a rival court in Barcelona under the Archduke Charles as “Charles III of Spain.” The land war in Europe was characterized by the military victories of the Allied commanders, the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy in Flanders, Germany, and Italy. However, the Bourbons maintained their supremacy in Spain itself. As the war protracted, financial and political exhaustion beset all sides. Despite sustained losses bringing France to the brink of collapse, Louis XIV continued to resist until Allied resolve softened with the events of 1710 and 1711 (the Tory victory in the British elections, the battle of Brihuega, and the death of Emperor Joseph I). The war ended with the signing of the treaties of Utrecht, Rastatt, and Baden (collectively known as the Peace of Utrecht) in 1713 and 1714. The British gained significant colonial possessions and concessions from the Bourbon powers as well as the territories of Gibraltar and Minorca. The Dutch received a reinforced barrier in the Low Countries. The Austrians received Spain’s possessions in Italy and the Low Countries. Philip V retained Spain and its colonial possessions.


1969 ◽  
Vol 100 (6) ◽  
pp. 702-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. B. Sulzberger

Author(s):  
Jennifer Phillips ◽  
Patricia L. McDermott ◽  
Marvin Thordsen ◽  
Michael McCloskey ◽  
Gary Klein

1986 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheryl L. Spinweber ◽  
Schuyler C. Webb ◽  
Christian Gillin

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document