In July 2002 the Combat Studies Institute (CSI) was reconstituted and given a new charter by the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) commander, General John Abrams. One of the three missions outlined in that charter is to conduct original, interpretive research on historical topics pertinent to the current doctrinal concerns of the US Army. Having published some 10 works in the intervening two years, CSI is now poised to initiate a new series addressing important facets of the Global War on Terrorism. Lieutenant Colonel Louis DiMarco's Traditions, Changes, and Challenges: Military Operations and the Middle Eastern City is the first in that series called Occasional Papers. The Middle East is one of the most urbanized regions of the world, and growth continues at an unprecedented rate. With operations ongoing in the Middle East today, it is fitting that this inaugural study should focus on military aspects of the urban areas of that region. There is an undoubted need for US military planners to possess a solid foundation of military history, cultural awareness, and an understanding of the intricacies of city design and function in this critical region. Each conflict brings its own challenges and dynamics. The challenges of a Middle Eastern fight require decisive involvement in that region's cities. The enemy is adaptive-we must be adaptive as well. This call to study and understand history and culture is the first step along that road to critical thinking and adaptability. The purpose of this work is to examine the major features of the Middle Eastern city and evaluate the military significance of those features. It intends to serve as a starting point for military professionals, particularly commanders and key staff officers at the Army battalion through corps level, planning or conducting operations in the region. This study should provide the context within which more detailed study, evaluation, and observation can be conducted. Although this study is mindful of the ongoing Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) fight, it was initiated before OIF began and does not specifically reflect its area of operations or lessons learned. This study emphasizes the traditional aspects of the Middle Eastern city because those features are most unique and distinct from western European and North American city design with which military professionals are familiar. In addition, the old city core is often the center of religious activity and thus is disproportionately politically and socially influential. The physical aspects of the traditional Middle Eastern city are examined here in detail-mosques, suqs, residences, and quarters. Also examined in some depth is the less obvious relationship between the Islamic religion and the Middle Eastern urban environment. How the modern Middle Eastern city has changed from its traditional form and the challenges associated with that rapid change are also covered in this study. These facets of the old Middle Eastern city are examined by reference to contemporary travel guides; academic works in the fields of Middle East history, urban geography, history, architecture, and city design; appropriate military manuals and publications; and contemporary travel narratives. This work connects the description of Middle Eastern city design to the conduct of full-spectrum military urban operations. It does this through referencing American and Israeli urban warfare experts, current Army and Joint doctrine described in US Army Field Manual 3-06, Urban Operations and Joint Publication 3-06, Joint Urban Operations, other relevant official publications, and historical experiences. Although the author did conduct limited travel in some of the region's urban centers, circumstances require that this paper primarily rely on open-source research. Finally, the reader should understand that this work is a survey of general regional characteristics.

The US Army's experience with detainee operations spans the period from the Revolutionary War to the present. More to the point, over the past 60 years a body of international law and military regulations, the joint and Army doctrine derived from it, and two centuries of practical experience have emerged that inform current detainee operations in the Global War on Terrorism. The 2004 revelations of detainee maltreatment at the Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad, Iraq have led to an exhaustive overhaul of Army doctrine and training with respect to this topic. The Army has identified disconnects in its individual, leader, and collective training programs, and has also identified the absence of a deliberate, focused doctrinal crosswalk between the two principal branches concerned with detainees, Military Intelligence (MI) and Military Police (MP). These problems and their consequences are real and immediate. The perceptions of just treatment held by citizens of our nation and, to a great extent the world at large, have been and are being shaped by the actions of the US Army, both in the commission of detainee maltreatment but also, and more importantly, in the way the Army addresses its institutional shortcomings. James Gebhardt's study, The Road to Abu Ghraib: US Army Detainee Doctrine and Experience, captures the salient doctrinal issues of this critical aspect of the Army's battlespace. Indeed, this work, in DRAFT form, has already informed the evolution of detainee doctrine in the MP and MI schoolhouses, as well as Combat Training Center practical exercises. A solid understanding of our past experiences will aid those soldiers charged with executing this important mission today and in the future, and this study represents a valuable contribution to the effort. When the Global War on Terrorism began in late 2001, few Americans had ever heard of the Geneva Conventions. Now type "Geneva Convention" into any Internet search engine and you can easily find all four Geneva Conventions and read them in the comfort of your home in three languages. Our armed forces, though, have a long history of dealing with Geneva Conventions that began with implementing the Convention of 1929 during World War II and then led to the Conventions of 1949 a year before the beginning of the Korean War. The US Army, in particular, has a long history of dealing with the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Geneva-based non-governmental organization that is the "promoter and enforcer," if one can use that phrase, of the Geneva Conventions. This study examines the relationship over time between doctrine in two branches of the Army-Military Police (MP) and Military Intelligence (MI)-and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GPW). Specifically, it analyzes the MP detention field manual series and the MI interrogation field manual series to evaluate their GPW content. It also further examines the relationship of military police and military intelligence to each other in the enemy prisoner-of-war (EPW) and detainee operations environment, as expressed in their doctrinal manuals. Finally, the study looks at the Army's experience in detainee operations through the prism of six conflicts or contingency operations: the Korean War, Vietnam, Operation URGENT FURY (Grenada, 1983), Operation JUST CAUSE (Panama, 1989), Operation DESERT STORM (Iraq, 1991), and Operation UPHOLD DEMOCRACY (Haiti, 1994).

Eyes Behind the Lines: US Army Long-Range Reconnaissance and Surveillance Units is the 10th study in the Combat Studies Institute (CSI) Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) Occasional Paper series. This work is an out-growth of concerns identified by the authors of On Point: The United States Army in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. Specifically, these authors called into question the use of long-range surveillance (LRD) assets by commanders during that campaign and suggested an assessment ought to be made about their continuing utility and means of employment. Major (Retired) James Gebhardt, of CSI, researched and wrote this Occasional Paper with that end in view. IN this study, Gebhardt surveys the US Army's historical experience with LRRP and LRS units from the 1960s Cold War and Vietnam War, through their resurgence in the 1980s and use in Operations JUST CAUSE and DESERT STROM, to the advent of the GWOT. The paper's analytical framework examines each era of LRS units in terms of doctrine, organization, training, material, leadership, and personnel. In doing so, the author makes a strong case for continuing the LRS capability in the Army's force structure. The variety of environments and enemies likely to be faced by the military in the GWOT continues to demand the unique human intelligence abilities of trained and organized LRS units. As the Army leads the Armed Forces of the United States in combating terrorists where they live, the lessons found in this survey remain timely and relevant.

Easier Said Than Done: Making the Transition Between Combat Operations and Stability Operations is another in the Combat Studies Institute's (CSI) Global War On Terrorism (GWOT) Occasional Papers series. The impetus for this series that concerns topics relevant to ongoing and future operations came from the Commanding General, Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth. Lieutenant General William S. Wallace, V Corps commander in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, directed CSI to examine historical topics that would benefit American and coalition soldiers and planners in both Iraq today, and in the broader GWOT spectrum now and in the future. One of those topics was the transition from combat (Phase III) operations to stability (Phase IV) operations, to use the current phasing construct familiar to campaign planners. Mr. David Cavaleri, a retired Armor lieutenant colonel and current CSI historian, has produced a study that examines nine critical factors that should be addressed in stabilization planning and execution. Mr. Cavaleri then presents a case study of the US occupation of Japan after World War II, followed by a parallel analysis of the case study and ongoing stability operations in Afghanistan and Iraq through the lens of the critical planning factors. This study serves as a bridge between the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) found in stability operations how-to manuals and the broader military operations other than war (MOOTW) concepts found in joint doctrine. Its purpose was to identify key themes that merit consideration when planning or conducting transitions between combat operations and stability operations. These themes were identified by combining a review of joint and US Army stability operations doctrine with a specific case study analysis of the US occupation of Japan from 1945 to 1952 and then extrapolated those themes to current stability operations to assess their applicability. The Japanese occupation is useful as a case study because it required that occupation forces address several challenges similar to those facing current stability operations in the Middle East, such as a fundamental change in governance philosophy, a long-term democratization program, a critical regional security challenge, and a complex economic reconstruction challenge. This analysis is not designed to serve as a one answer fits all challenges solution set, but rather as a practical vehicle for informing time-constrained professionals operating at the tactical and operational levels. One can easily identify several instances where the US Army has faced stability operations challenges; Cuba, Germany, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Vietnam immediately come to mind. Each case involved stability operations challenges unique to its environment, but only one time during the 20th century did the United States take the lead in stabilizing the entire infrastructure-political, economic, industrial, military, educational, and even societal-of a former enemy. During this complex stability operation, the US Army implemented a number of planning themes related to transitioning between the full spectrum operations components of offense/defense and stability/support. These themes were applied, depending on the US Army's ability to manipulate each, with varying degrees of success. A RAND Corporation study published in 2003, titled America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, developed six such themes, traced each through seven case studies, and concluded by drawing implications for future US military operations.

"Turning Victory Into Success: Military Operations After the Campaign" was the title of a recent US Army Training and Doctrine Command/Combat Studies Institute military symposium at Fort Leavenworth. The presenters looked at the imperative of linking battlefield success to political objectives across both tactical and strategic spectrums. One of the symposium's salient points was that overwhelming military accomplishment does not automatically translate to overall success. Major Tim Karcher's Understanding the "Victory Disease," From the Little Bighorn to Mogadishu and Beyond presents further evidence supporting the above premise. With Operations ENDURING and IRAQI FREEDOM in the foreground today, it is fitting that this study should focus on military operations undertaken in the immediate aftermath of extraordinary military victory. US military planners must possess a solid foundation of military history and cultural awareness to ensure battlefield and strategic success today and in the future. Future conflicts are not likely to resemble those of the past, whether they are conflicts from dim memory, the previous decade, or last year. Each brings its own challenges and dynamics. One thing is certain, however, as Major Karcher points out: The US military cannot rest on the laurels of previous campaigns. Major Karcher's study makes an important contribution to military history as a warfighter's tool to refine critical thinking and adaptability. As a result of America's national strength and its demonstrated military prowess, US forces are quite susceptible to falling prey to the effects of the "victory disease." The disease, by definition, brings defeat to a previously victorious nation or military due to three basic symptoms: arrogance, complacency, and the habit of using established patterns to solve military problems. The growth of the victory disease can best be analyzed through the study of historical examples where the symptoms become quite clear. This work uses the 1876 Battle of the Little Bighorn and the 1993 actions of Task Force Ranger in Mogadishu, Somalia to highlight the disease's effects. Studying the victory disease can help one avoid succumbing to its effects and ultimately find an effective vaccination. As this work will argue, the only real vaccine for the disease is found in increased study of military history in the Officer Education System, particularly through focusing on campaigns and battles where defeat may be attributed to the sickness. Simple awareness of the problem prevents one from falling prey to the disease, thereby creating immunity.

The Law of War: Can 20th-Century Standards Apply to the Global War on Terrorism? is the ninth offering in the Combat Studies Institute's (CSI) Global War On Terrorism (GWOT) Occasional Papers series. Mr. David Cavaleri, a retired Armor lieutenant colonel and CSI historian, has produced a study that examines the evolution and continued applicability of the corpus, both conventional and customary, that constitutes the law of war. As background, Mr. Cavaleri provides a theoretical framework and the development of the law within Western and, specifically, US Army doctrine and regulation. He then presents a case study of the British suppression of the Mau Mau insurgency in 1950s Kenya, a conflict with particular resonance today. Some of the more relevant characteristics of the "emergency," as it was called, include the clash between Western and non-Western cultures and an initially asymmetric fight between conventional security forces and loosely organized, poorly equipped insurgents. The genesis of this study is the public discourse, both explicit and implicit, asserting the possibility that the GWOT may require new rules and new law-of-war prescripts. This important discussion is fraught with complexities and long-term implications; the moral force in warfare is incredibly significant and any changes to the legal framework in place must be very carefully considered. Do we follow the law of war to the letter, do we remain "consistent with the principles of Geneva," or do we approach the conflict as a new challenge requiring fundamental revisions to the law? These are the options Mr. Cavaleri addresses, and we are pleased to contribute this Occasional Paper to the debate. In 1630 the first governor of Massachusetts, John Winthrop, wrote a sermon titled "A Model of Christian Charity" in which he enjoined his fellow colonists to make Boston a "city set on a hill." Subsequent political leaders, President Ronald Reagan for one, have periodically employed that image to portray the United States as a beacon of moral fortitude and Western character. This perception of the United States as a "shining city" creates a dilemma caused by the friction between the regulatory principles of the law of war as codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the military necessity of responding to non-Western tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) now encountered during the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). This study is intended to generate discussion about the application of the law of war during 21st-century military campaigns conducted in the contemporary operational environment (COE). It combines a review of the documentary evolution of the law of war with a historical case study of the British experience in Kenya between 1952 and 1960 against the Mau Mau insurgents. It makes no claim that every lesson learned by the British during that counterinsurgency operation can be directly applied by the United States to the challenges of the GWOT, but this analysis does offer some insight about applying the law of war to an unfamiliar, non-Western environment. The debate concerning the law of war's applicability will grow more vocal as non-state enemies of the United States adapt TTP to exploit perceived centers of gravity like public opinion. In anticipation of that escalating debate, this analysis offers the following as its overarching question: Is the current version of the law of war suited to the COE in general and the GWOT in particular?