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.

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?