The US perspective on future war: why the US relies upon Ares rather than Athena

References

• Auerswald, D.P., 2001. The President, the Congress and American Missile Defence Policy. Defence studies, 1 (2), 57–82. doi:10.1080/714000032
   Google Scholar
• Auerswald, D.P. and Campbell, C.C., 2017. Congress: the Other Branch. In: R.Z. George and H. Rishikof, eds. The National Security Enterprise: navigating the Labyrinth. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barkawi, T., 2011. From war to security: security studies, the wider agenda, and the fate of the study of war. Millennium, 39 (3), 701–716. doi:10.1177/0305829811400656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barkawi, T. and Brighton, S., 2011. Powers of war: fighting, knowledge, and critique. International political sociology, 5 (2), 126–143. doi:10.1111/ips.2011.5.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berntsen, T.A., Dyndal, G.L., and Johansen, S.R., eds., 2016. Når dronene våkner. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm.
   Google Scholar
• Betts, R., 2011. American force: dangers, delusions, and dilemmas in National Security. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bousquet, A., 2009. The scientific way of warfare: order and chaos on the battlefield of modernity. London: Hurst.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, M. and Kelly, J., 2009. Alien: how operational art devoured strategy. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Brodie, B., 1949. Strategy as a science. World politics, 1 (4), 467–488. doi:10.2307/2008833
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brooks, R., 2008. Shaping strategy: the civil military politics of strategic assessment. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bruneau, T.C. and Matei, F.C., eds., 2013. The Routledge handbook of civil-military relations. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Builder, C., 1988. The masks of war: American styles in strategy and analysis. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buley, B., 2008. The new American way of war: military culture and the political utility of force. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Buzan, B., 1987. An introduction to strategic studies: military technology and international relations. London: MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Christiansson, M., 2018. Defense planning beyond rationalism: the third offset strategy as a case of metagovernance. Defence studies, 18 (3), 262–278.
   Google Scholar
• Davis, P.K., 2012. Lessons from Rand's work on planning under uncertainty for national security. Santa Monica: RAND.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense, 2001. Quadrennial defense review 2001. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense, 2006. Quadrennial defense review 2006. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense, 2010. Quadrennial defense review 2010. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Defense, 2014. Quadrennial defense review 2014. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Duyvesteyn, I., 2013. Strategic illiteracy: the art of strategic thinking in modern military operations. The Netherlands: Universiteit Leiden.
   Google Scholar
• Durell-Young, T., 2018. Questioning the “sanctity” of Long-Term Defense Planning as practiced in Central and Eastern Europe. Defence studies, 18 (3), 357–373.
   Google Scholar
• Echevarria, A., 2004. Toward an American way of war. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Echevarria, A., 2010. Preparing for one war and getting another?. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Echevarria, A., 2014. Reconsidering the American way of war: US military practice from the revolution to Afghanistan. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Egnell, R., 2009. Complex peace operations and civil-military relations: winning the peace. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Erdeniz, R., 2016. Operations planning revisited: theoretical and practical implications of methodology. Defence studies, 16 (3), 248–269. doi:10.1080/14702436.2016.1187567
   Google Scholar
• Feaver, P.D. and Kohn, R.H., eds., 2001. Soldiers and civilians: the civil-military gap and American national security. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Flournoy, M.A., 2001. QDR 2001: strategy driven choices for America’s security. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, L., 2013. Strategy: a history. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, L., 2017. The future of war: a history. New York: Public Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Gaddis, J.L., 2004. The landscape of history: how historians map the past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A., 1991. The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gooch, J. and Perlmutter, A., eds., 1982. Military deception and strategic surprise. London: Frank Cass.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, C., 2005. Another bloody century: future warfare. London: Cassell.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, C., 2010. Strategic thoughts for defence planners. Survival, 52 (3), 159–178. doi:10.1080/00396338.2010.494883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, C., 2014a. Strategy and defence planning: meeting the challenge of uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gray, C., 2014b. Defense planning for national security: navigation aids for the mystery tour. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gunziger, M., 2013. Shaping America’s future military: toward a new force planning construct. Washington, DC: CSBA.
   Google Scholar
• Hanley, B., 2008. Planning for conflict in the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Hays, P.L., Vallance, B.J., and Van Tassel, A.R., eds.., 1997. American defense policy. 7th ed. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hodgson, Q.E., 2010. Deciding to buy: civil-military relations and major weapons programs. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Holman, R., 2001. The imagination of the future: a hidden concept in the study of consumer decision-making. Advances in consumer research, 8, 187–191.
   Google Scholar
• Holmqvist, C., 2014. Policing wars: on military intervention in the twenty-first century. London: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Holsti, K.J., 2004. Taming the sovereigns: institutional change in international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hopkins, L. and Zapata, M., 2001. Engaging the future: forecasts, scenarios, plans and projects. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Huntington, S., 1957. The soldier and the state: the theory and politics of civil-military relations. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Imlay, T.C. and Toft, M.D., ed., 2006. The fog of war and peace planning. London: Frank Cass.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, B., 2018. The role of ideas in defense planning: revisiting the revolution in military affairs. Defence studies, 18 (3), 302–317.
   Google Scholar
• Johansson, L., forthcoming. Ethical aspects on military maritime and aerial autonomous systems. Journal of military ethics.
   Google Scholar
• Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1996. Joint vision 2010. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2000. Joint vision 2020. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
   Google Scholar
• Karlsson, H., 2002. Bureaucratic politics and weapons acquisition: the case of the MX ICBM program, 2 vol: s. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
   Google Scholar
• Kem, J.D., 2009. Campaign planning: tools of the trade. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Department of Joint, Interagency and Multinational Operations.
   Google Scholar
• Krepinevich, A.F., 2010. 7 deadly scenarios: a military futurist explores war in the 21st century. New York: Bantam Books.
   Google Scholar
• Kreps, S., 2016. Drones: what everyone needs to know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuosa, T., 2011. Evolution of futures studies. Futures, 43, 327–336. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2010.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovelace, D.C. and Durell-Young, T., 1995. US department of defense strategic planning: the missing nexus. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Mahnken, T., 2008. Technology and the American way of war. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McAllister Linn, B., 2007. The echo of battle: the army’s way of war. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McKernan, M., Drezner, J.A., and Sollinger, J.M., 2015. Tailoring the acquisition process in the US department of defense. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
   Google Scholar
• Meese, M.J., 2014. Strategy and force planning in a time of austerity. Strategic studies quarterly, 8 (3), 19–29.
   Google Scholar
• Michaels, J., 2013. The discourse trap and the US military: from the war on terror to the surge. London: Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Nathan, J.A. and Oliver, J.K., 1994. Foreign policy making and the American political system. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• National Intelligence Council, 2000. Global trends 2015: a dialogue about the future with non-government experts. Washington, DC: National Intelligence Council.
   Google Scholar
• National Intelligence Council, 2004. Global Trends 2020: mapping the global future. Washington, DC: National Intelligence Council.
   Google Scholar
• National Intelligence Council, 2008. Global trends 2025: a transformed world. Washington, DC: National Intelligence Council.
   Google Scholar
• National Intelligence Council, 2012. Global trends 2030: alternative worlds. Washington, DC: National Intelligence Council.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, D.N., 2001. Beyond defence planning. Defence studies, 1 (3), 25–36. doi:10.1080/714000042
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, S. and Snider, D.M., ed., 2009. American civil-military relations: the soldier and the state in a new era. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nordin, A. and Öberg, D., 2015. Targeting the ontology of war: from Clausewitz to Baudrillard. Millennium, 43 (2), 392–410. doi:10.1177/0305829814552435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noreen, E., Sjöstedt, R., and Ångström, J., 2017. Why small states join big wars: the case of Sweden in Afghanistan 2002–2014. International relations, 31 (2), 145–168. doi:10.1177/0047117816651125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Hanlon, M., 2009. The science of war. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Paparone, C., 2012. The sociology of military science: prospects for postinstitutional military design. New York: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Pfaff, W., 2010. The irony of manifest identity: the tragedy of America’s foreign policy. New York: Walker.
   Google Scholar
• Quester, G.H., 1992. Evolving Determinants of US Strategic Policy-Making. In: J.C. Gaston, ed. Grand strategy and the decision-making process. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ricks, T., 2006. Fiasco: the American military adventure in Iraq. New York: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Riposo, J., McKernan, M., and Kaihoi Duran, C., 2014. Prolonged cycle times and schedule growth in defense acquisition. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, E., 2012. War from the ground up: twenty-first century combat as politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sondhaus, L., 2006. Strategic culture and ways of war. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Stone, J., 2011. Military strategy: the politics and technique of war. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Tama, J., 2018. Tradeoffs in defense strategic planning: lessons from the U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review. Defence studies, 18 (3), 279–301.
   Google Scholar
• Tilly, C., 1975. Reflections on the history of European state-making. In: C. Tilly, ed. The formation of national states in Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vine, D., 2015. Base nation: how US military bases abroad harm America and the world. New York: Metropolitan Books.
   Google Scholar
• Warburg, G.F., 2017. Lobbyists: when US National Security and Special Interests Compete. In: R.Z. George and H. Rishikof, ed. The National security enterprise: navigating the labyrinth. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weighley, R., 1973. The American way of war: a history of United States military strategy and policy. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Yarger, H.R., 2008. Strategy and the national security professional: strategic thinking and strategy formulation in the 21st century. Westport, CT: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Zweibelson, B., 2015. One piece at a time: why linear planning and institutionalisms promote military campaign failures. Defence studies, 15 (4), 360–374. doi:10.1080/14702436.2015.1113667
   Google Scholar