In a new study from the Center for Strategy and Budgetary Assessments entitled “Doing What You Know: The United States and 250 Years of Irregular War,” Dave Johnson, PhD, CSBA senior fellow, analyzes why the United States has been as of yet unable to win the post 9-11 “Global War on Terrorism”  despite its consistent use of  “irregular combat.” “Its military forces, particularly the Army, Marine Corps, and Special Operations Forces, have made significant adaptations after the onset of the insurgency in Iraq following the initial success of conventional operations there in 2003,” he writes. “Yet, victory—achieving the desired political objectives—in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to elude the United States more than fifteen years into the Global War on Terrorism despite significant investments in blood and treasure.” Learn more about the report here.

The Center for a New American Security’s August 2017 report entitled “The ‘Section 702′ Surveillance Program: What You Need to Know,” co-authored by Adam Klein, CNAS’ Robert M. Gates senior fellow, Madeline Christian, a former technology and national security intern at CNAS, and Matt Olsen, an adjunct senior fellow in the think tank’s Technology & National Security program, dissects the controversial portion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ahead of its tentative expiration on Dec. 31, 2017 (barring congressional reauthorization). The report explains how the provision’s surveillance authorities differ from other FISA ones, the scope of potential targeting, how authorized data is collected and more.

In “A Blueprint for New Sanctions on North Korea,” a new report from the Center for a New American Security, co-authors Edward Fishman, a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, Peter Harrell, an adjunct senior fellow at CNAS, and Elizabeth Rosenberg, CNAS senior fellow and director of its Energy, Economics, and Security Program, present a playbook for potential US sanctions on North Korea. “As Congress and the executive branch consider ways to combat the North Korean threat, this report offers policymakers an analysis of the situation, an assessment of the successes and failures of sanctions imposed to date, and options for increasing Pyongyang’s economic isolation,” they write. “With enhanced economic leverage, the United States will be better placed to address North Korea’s destabilizing influence and lay the table for potential nuclear diplomacy.”

In the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments’ “Overview of the FY 2018 Defense Budget Request,” Katherine Blakeley, CSBA research fellow, breaks down the Trump administration’s proposed defense budget for the coming fiscal year. “This proposed $603 billion in discretionary base national defense spending would be $51.8 billion dollars more than the $551 billion the Obama administration requested in FY 2017, an increase of 9.4 percent,” she writes in the report’s overview. “The requested $603 billion is also $54 billion, or 10 percent, over the caps on national defense spending for FY 2018 established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), as amended.”

In a July 2017 report published by the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies entitled “An Operational Imperative: The Future of Air Superiority,” Brig. Gen. Alex Grynkewich, USAF, reflects on his work as part of an interdisciplinary team charged with reviewing “options to gain and maintain continued control of the air,” according to a press release. Grynkewich writes that the US Defense Department needs to change its approaches to data and acquisition to achieve “air superiority in the future.”

In his new report entitled “Consolidating the Revolution: Optimizing the Potential of Remotely Piloted Aircraft,” Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF Ret., dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, argues that the US needs to revamp its use of remotely piloted aircraft, or RPAs, since demand for them will stay high despite falling defense budgets.

In a new report published by the Center for a New American Security, Cmdr. Tom Shugart, USN, former CNAS senior military fellow, and Cmdr. Javier Gonzalez, USN, former Navy fellow at Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory, examine the threat that China’s People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force poses to American military installations in the Asia-Pacific region.  Using geographic, photographic and military-strategic data available in the public domain, the researchers were able to pinpoint potential targets of Chinese missile attacks. “The results of our modeling and simulation, which show the potential for devastation of U.S. power projection forces and bases in Asia, are deeply concerning – and a call for action,” they write.

In a new report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies entitled “U.S. Military Spending: The Cost of Wars,” Anthony Cordesman, CSIS’ Arleigh A. Burke chair in strategy, makes the case for a paradigm shift in US defense-spending analyses. “For the last several decades, there has been little real effort to examine the costs of key missions and strategic commitments and the longer term trends in force planning and cost,” he writes. “Both the Executive Branch and the Congress have failed to reform any key aspect of the defense and foreign policy budgets to look beyond input budgeting by line item and by military service, and doing so on an annual basis.” The report goes onto to break down the answers to some of these previously unasked questions and add new context to the nation’s war-related spending.

In a new report from the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School for Government, written by Greg Allen and Taniel Chan on behalf of Jason Matheny, PhD, director of the US Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Agency, the authors propose a framework for developing policy for military and intelligence applications of artificial intelligence. “In this piece, we propose three goals for developing future policy on AI and national security: preserving U.S. technological leadership, supporting peaceful and commercial use, and mitigating catastrophic risk,” the project’s overview reads. “By looking at four prior cases of transformative military technology — nuclear, aerospace, cyber, and biotech — we develop lessons learned and recommendations for national security policy toward AI.” Learn more about the report here.

In this new report, Jerry Hendrix, PhD, senior fellow and director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security, and Lt. Col. James Price, USAF, a CNAS senior military fellow, trace the history and evolution of the bomber aircraft, from the pre-World War I era to the present day. ” The authors will introduce the theory, doctrine, and technology behind their development, as well as the performance characteristics and trends that combined to provide ever-increasing range, payload (or volume of fires), and most importantly the ability to penetrate constantly improving defenses,” the report’s preface reads.