Are armies the dinosaurs of the 21st Century, soon to become extinct in the new security environment? What is the function of an army? Is security and defense the same thing? What must armies be able to do? And, equally important, what should they not do? Will armies remain armies? Will they be replaced by other kinds of armed security forces, such as police forces? Should only military forces perform some tasks? What military and security forces are the most useful, given the novel range of threats that we face? This paper offers an analytical framework for examining these questions. The principal focus is to reexamine the roles and missions of military and security forces in the Europe- Eurasia strategic region, with particular emphasis on how new and emerging requirements challenge legacy concepts and organizations.

This paper examines the historical and political roots behind the transformation in Russian foreign policy in the wake of the terrorist acts of 9/11. Although the war in Iraq tempered Russia’s initial, unequivocal support for the US, current Russian foreign policy is vastly different from her policy in the previous decade. Using the opportunity and rhetoric of the war on terrorism, Russia has made a normative choice in favor of Westernization and a strategic partnership with the United States and Europe.

On September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda terrorists flew two commercial airplanes into the World Trade Center and one into the Pentagon. A fourth crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside. Nearly 3,000 innocents died in the attacks. This Marshall Center Paper explores the legality of the US response to 9/11 against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Although States have conducted military counter-terrorist operations in the past, the scale and scope of Operation Enduring Freedom may well signal a sea change in strategies to defend against terrorism. This paper explores the normative limit on counter-terrorist operations. Under what circumstances can a victim State react forcibly to an act of terrorism? Against whom? When? And with what degree of severity?

This paper examines the current state of the transatlantic relationship and assesses the possibilities for future US–European cooperation. It argues that transatlantic relations are troubled and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Many Europeans believe that the United States is not taking into account the views and interests of its traditional allies. The emerging transatlantic division of minds will only intensify if the US decides to invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.

Marshall Center Paper #3 provides two views on Cooperative Security. Richard Cohen presents a compelling and highly original Cooperative Security model. Michael Mihalka broadens the analysis and traces its history. These contrasting essays explore the prospects for a new era of international relations, characterized by reassurance instead of deterrence, cooperation as opposed to confrontation, and mutual benefit in place of unilateral advantage.

This Marshall Center Paper offers an authoritative view by a member of Russia's Parliament on how NATO's attack on Serbia in 1999 affected international relations and Russias current security position. Dr. Arbatov argues that Kosovo and Chechnya have caused a revision of Moscows highest national security documents. Recognizing Russias severe resource constraints, Arbatov explores several different possible force structures for the future.

At the European Union's Helsinki summit of December 1999, European leaders took a decisive step toward the development of a new Common European Security and Defense Policy aimed at giving the EU a stronger role in international affairs backed by a credible military force. This Marshall Center Paper analyzes the processes leading to Helsinki by examining why and how this new European consensus on defense issues came about. It takes the pulse of the EU's emerging defense policy and touches upon the main controversies and challenges that still lie ahead.