The first analysis is Forceful Engagement: Rethinking the Role of Military Power in US Global Policy. In this report, Conetta highlights that while there has been a dramatic increase in military spending over the last ten years, the world is a more dangerous place. Further, the virtual dependence of the US on projecting military force as its primary approach to global situations has stretched that resource beyond any level of efficiency. This means that the US is "paying more and more for less and less security."

Further, the dramatic increase in military spending and the end of the Cold War, was seen by some as an opportunity to extend US dominance. Perhaps in part to justify the growing budget, "worst case" scenarios were increasingly pushed to the fore. With the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive invasion and the use of nuclear weapons, we now are watching an escalation of military development which threatens to place us back on vulnerable footing with both old and new competitors.

There are possibilities for the new administration to transform growing tension into mutual cooperation by focusing on shared concerns. Conetta frames this alternative as follows:

An alternative security policy would emphasize broad multilateral cooperation in containing and resolving regional crises, reducing conflict potentials, and redressing the sources of instability in the international system. And, it would recognize that the sources of instability today are not principally military, political, or ideological in character, but instead economic, demographic, and environmental.

The real measure of a renewed US diplomacy will be efforts to reach across current strategic divides-- especially to Russia, China, and the Muslim world-- and find common ground. Cooperation on water, food, energy, and health security, global warming, economic development, and the management of globalization could serve as a foundation for progress on more divisive issues. A re-emphasis on traditional "quid pro quo" diplomacy will pay higher dividends in resolving divisive issues than will the resort to coercive diplomacy and saber rattling.

The second policy perspective is "Re-Envisioning Defense: An Agenda for US Policy Debate and Transition." Conetta points out twenty-five strategic concerns organized into three core areas - policy vision, role of the armed forces, and the fit between defense and global security.

Policy Vision: the "war on terrorism" places us on a permanent war footing which not only increases costs, but may actually serve to aggravate existing problems - such as stretch and the arms race.

The Role of the Armed Forces: Conetta argues that the use of force has been increasing. This is not only expensive, it makes that force increasingly ineffective and sometimes counter-productive.

Fit Between Defense and Global Security: the increasing reach of the Defense arena is overwriting the diplomatic arena. Not only has the pressure led us to a policy of global coverage, but military usurping of State Department arenas. Development of more peacekeeping and training activities would contribute to a better balance and increase security.

I strongly encourage readers to look carefully at these two documents. They raise issues and present information that is critical to our informed evaluation of the role of the defense system and national and international security. There are many forces that are driving the world towards either solutions or increased conflict (resources, environmental destruction, collapsing global and national economies). The military is currently the biggest and most frequently used tool in the box. This isn't working, won't work, and actually increases risk. We all need to think about these issues.