Cover: U.S. National Military Strategy and Force Posture for the Post-Communist Era

U.S. National Military Strategy and Force Posture for the Post-Communist Era

Published 1992

by Richard L. Kugler


Download Free Electronic Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.8 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.


Purchase Print Copy

 Format Price
Add to Cart Paperback19 pages $20.00

This paper, the text of a speech before the senior seminar of the Foreign Service Institute, Washington, D.C., November 14, 1991, comments on how the United States should approach national security, emphasizing the relationship between strategy and force structure. The dramatic events of 1991 have overturned some of the assumptions underlying policy decisions made in 1990 for the post-Cold War period. Today, for instance, it is hard to portray the Soviet Union and Iraq as serious military threats. The Defense Department and the executive branch thus may find it difficult to justify a continuing strong U.S. defense establishment without a readily identifiable and militarily powerful adversary. The national security community will have to develop an entirely new theory of U.S. policy, strategy, and forces for the post-communist era. To this end, the author makes six suggestions for assessing future U.S. military requirements: (1) address requirements "proactively," not passively; (2) relearn the art of thinking in terms of military strategy; (3) realize that the end of communism does not mean the end of international conflict; (4) maintain a long-term perspective; (5) remember that the Cold War was won by a sustained commitment to a worthy purpose; and (6) devise a coherent strategic concept for guiding defense strategy.

This report is part of the RAND paper series. The paper was a product of RAND from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.