In this report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Hal Brands and Peter Feaver assess America’s strategic options after ISIS by examining four politico-military strategies for counter-terrorism. They conclude that an enhanced version of the approach that the Obama administration took to defeating ISIS represents the best strategy for waging a dangerous conflict that is likely to endure for many years.

In this report, authors Eric S. Edelman and Whitney Morgan McNamara of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments outline a number of options the United States has for countering and limiting Russian political-military moves. Absent steps in this direction, the United States will find it difficult to meet the challenges that Russia has managed to present to European security. The result might well be a European security order that is less stable and less conducive to national prosperity than what we have experienced since the end of the Cold War.

With the U.S. presence in Afghanistan nearing its 16th year, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) has released a report making concrete recommendations for how the Unite States can work toward a successful outcome while limiting the risks and costs of open-ended engagement or an abrupt withdrawal. The report, “Focused Engagement: A New Way Forward in Afghanistan,” is written by CNAS Adjunct Senior Fellow Christopher D. Kolenda, who served four tours of duty in Afghanistan as a commander and a senior advisor to three commanding generals.

In “Tracking the Trends and Numbers: Islam, Terrorism, Stability and Conflict in the Middle East,” Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, writes that far too much of the current U.S. debate over immigration and terrorism is focused on fear, rather than on an effort to understand the forces driving unrest and extremism in Islam and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, or on the data available on the trends involved. The Burke Chair at CSIS has prepared a detailed overview of these trends and the data available in graphic and map form.

In its report, “Alternative Future Fleet Platform Architecture Study,” the US Navy argues it needs 355 ships to support US strategy and address future threats. The study is one of three mandated by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act 2016 to help shape Navy shipbuilding and force structure. The other two are: the “Navy Future Fleet Platform Architecture Study” by the MITRE Corporation – one of America’s federally funded research and development centers – that concluded that the US Navy needs 414 ships t0 support US strategy and confront threats in 2030; and “Restoring American Seapower” by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments that concludes the Navy needs 350 ships. Links to all three reports can also be found on this site.

In its “Navy Future Fleet Platform Architecture Study,” the MITRE Corporation – one of America’s federally funded research and development centers – concluded that the US Navy needs 414 ships t0 support US strategy and confront threats in 2030. The study is one of three mandated by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act 2016 to help shape Navy shipbuilding and force structure. The other two are “Restoring American Seapower” by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments that concludes the Navy needs between about 340 and 380 ships — depending on ship counting rules — and the Navy’s own internal study, “Alternative Future Fleet Platform Architecture Study,” which found a need for 355 ships. Links to all three reports can be found on this site.

In “Breaking Aleppo,” the Atlantic Council uses innovative open source methodologies, digital forensic research, forensic architecture, and geolocation analysis to produce a ground-breaking report capturing the final months of the breaking of Aleppo. Drawing from a vast team of international partners, the report lays out the facts and fictions of the conflict, serving as a reminder that the atrocities of Aleppo should not be so easily forgotten.

Read the Report, Check Out the Presentation – In “Restoring American Seapower: A New Fleet Architecture of the United States Navy,” Bryan Clark, Peter Haynes, Jessie Sloman and Timothy Walton of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments joined by Bryan McGrath of the Hudson Institute and Craig Hooper of Gryphon Scientific argue the Navy will need to take a new approach to deterring great power competitors than it did against regional powers such as Iraq. The study found that the Navy needs between 340 and 380 ships — depending on ship counting rules — and is one of three mandated by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act 2016 to help shape Navy shipbuilding and force structure. The other two are the Navy’s own internal study, “Alternative Future Fleet Platform Architecture Study,” which found a need for 355 ships and the “Navy Future Fleet Platform Architecture Study” by the MITRE Corporation – one of America’s federally funded research and development centers – that concluded the Navy needs 414 ships to support US strategy and confront threats in 2030. Links to all three reports can be found at the Defense & Aerospace Report website.

In “Designing and Managing Successful International Joint Development Programs,” Andrew Hunter, Gregory Sanders and Samantha Cohen of the Center for Strategic and International Studies argue international joint development programs are important because of their potential to reduce costs and increase partnership benefits such as interoperability, economies of scale, and technical advancement.