DOCSLIB.ORG

Interview with MAJ Glen Helberg

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interview with MAJ Glen Helberg UNCLASSIFIED A project of the Combat Studies Institute, the Operational Leadership Experiences interview collection archives firsthand, multi-service accounts from military personnel who planned, participated in and supported operations in the Global War on Terrorism. Interview with MAJ Glen Helberg Combat Studies Institute Fort Leavenworth, Kansas UNCLASSIFIED Abstract MAJ Glen Helberg served as a scout platoon leader with the 187th Infantry in Bagram, Kandahar and Paktia Province, Afghanistan during 2002 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), and as a company commander and brigade planner with the 25th Infantry Division (ID) in Baghdad, Iraq during 2007-2009 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In this December 2009 interview, MAJ Helberg discusses his unit's role in Operation Anaconda, a short mission in Pakistan providing airfield security, and his deployment to Iraq and the vast difference in condition on the ground between Iraq and his early deployment to Afghanistan. MAJ Helberg concludes his interview with the observation, "The biggest thing I took away from this deployment and from a stability operations perspective is just looking at your area or your responsibilities as a systemic approach rather than a lot of things you have to fix or things that have to get done. More often than not that list of things is all interconnected. Finding the right place to apply your resources is absolutely critical and really multiplies your effects. Whether it is infrastructure repair or security force transition and training, those things are all interconnected in stability operations. Finding the right place to leverage that is definitely not something I'd ever really thought of before." UNCLASSIFIED Interview with MAJ Glen Helberg 7 December 2009 JF: My name is Jenna Fike (JF) and I'm with the Operational Leadership Experiences Project at the Combat Studies Institute, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. I'm interviewing MAJ Glen Helberg (GH) on his experiences during Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Today's date is 7 December 2009 and this is an unclassified interview. Before we begin, if you feel at any time that we're entering classified territory, please couch your response in terms that avoid revealing any classified information, and if classification requirements prevent you from responding, simply say that you're not able to answer. When did you first find out that you would be deploying to Afghanistan? GH: We found out right around mid-December 2001. I guess it was just before Christmas. JF: So it was very shortly after 9/11? GH: Yes. JF: Where in Afghanistan did you serve? GH: I served in Kandahar, Bagram, and also out in Paktia Province during Operation Anaconda. I also served for a month in Pakistan as well. JF: So you moved around a lot? GH: Yes. JF: What is your background with the Army? GH: I've been in for 10 years and I've served in a variety of infantry leadership positions and staff positions. JF: Did you always want to be infantry? GH: I did. It seemed to me that if I was going to be in the Army I might as well be in the infantry and lead soldiers. JF: Back to your deployment to Afghanistan. This was very early and was probably the first deployment to Afghanistan. GH: It was the first conventional Army units into Afghanistan, yes. JF: So some of the procedures that are in place now were probably not in place then. Was there any kind of pre-deployment training? GH: No. As a matter of fact our battalion was prepping to go to the Multinational Force Observers (MFO) mission in the Sinai in September 2001. About a month after that, they notified us that a National Guard unit would be taking that and about a month later we were told we were going to Afghanistan. It was a pretty short turnaround from notification to deployment. Operational Leadership Experiences Project, Combat Studies Institute, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 3 UNCLASSIFIED JF: What is the MFO mission? GH: It's the observer mission in the Sinai. JF: So you didn't have any pre-deployment training. What unit were you assigned to for this deployment? GH: I was with 2nd Battalion, 187th Infantry, which is part of 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division. JF: What was your title? GH: I was a scout platoon leader. JF: As a scout platoon leader what were your major responsibilities? GH: We primarily serve as the reconnaissance element for the battalion. Throughout our time there we served in either that role of reconnaissance or early warning-type. JF: You said you served in multiple locations in Afghanistan. Where were you first deployed to? GH: Kandahar. JF: What did it look like when you got there? GH: It was fairly austere. There was a Marine unit that had just seized and secured it about a month before we got there. The day we got there we set up our own tents. There was nothing. JF: What about enemy contact? GH: It was sporadic. A day or two before we arrived there had been a fairly decent sized firefight with the Marine unit there. It was fairly sporadic throughout our time in Kandahar. Every couple of days you'd get some probing attacks. JF: About how long were you in Kandahar? GH: We were there for just over a month before we made our move. JF: Can you give me an idea of a typical day in Kandahar while you were there? GH: Our battalion had a defense mission so they literally had a defensive perimeter and fighting positions dug around the airfield. My platoon specifically had three teams outside the wire living and working with the Afghan militia forces. On a fairly normal day I'd get up and go to the morning update at battalion headquarters and then head out with my platoon sergeant to go out to our outposts (OPs) to resupply, check on and meet with the local Afghan militia guys. I'd come back in in the evening for the evening update and to get ready for the next day. JF: So you were outside the wire daily? GH: Yes. Operational Leadership Experiences Project, Combat Studies Institute, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 4 UNCLASSIFIED JF: Were you involved at all with training the Afghans? GH: There was some limited training but they were really just local Afghans who picked up a rifle and said they wanted to help fight the Taliban. It wasn't a real organized military force. They didn't really start pushing the training of the Afghan military until later on in our deployment and we weren't really involved in that. JF: Did you deploy with interpreters? GH: No. JF: How did you deal with the local Afghans? GH: For the first couple of weeks we used hand and arm signals and pointed to pictures in books. Even the Afghanistan handbooks we had [didn't help] because not many -- JF: Was it Dari where you were? GH: It was Dari in the handbooks but everyone there spoke Pashtu so those were of minimal use. There was a lot of pointing and staring at each other. JF: Is that how it stayed? GH: After a couple of weeks we started getting some interpreters in. I honestly don't know how the process worked to get them there, but they were locals who had been hired to come in and work for us. JF: Is there any large mission or outstanding event from this month in Kandahar? GH: No. That was pretty much it; that security mission at the airfield. The battalion sent a company off to do sensitive site exploitation (SSE). They had thought they hit a high-value target (HVT) with a missile attack up in the mountains so they went up there to try and figure out what it was. JF: SSE? GH: They weren't sure if they found Bin Laden. They saw a tall guy in the Predator feed and fired a missile at him so they sent a company up there to try and collect forensic evidence to determine if it was him. We sent a small scout team up there but that was the most major thing of that month. JF: Is a SSE always a person of interest or can also it be some kind of -- GH: It can be a location. JF: Like a weapons cache? GH: Weapons cache, documents, records, computers; just about anything. JF: What were the circumstances surrounding your move out of Kandahar and where did you head? Operational Leadership Experiences Project, Combat Studies Institute, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 5 UNCLASSIFIED GH: We got notified that there was an upcoming mission and that we were going to be moving up to Bagram. We packed up, hopped on helicopters, and flew up to Bagram which is where we started the planning process for Operation Anaconda. JF: How long were you there? GH: We were there for four or five days prior to the operation and then for a couple of days after it. We used Bagram as the forward staging base to launch for Anaconda. JF: How much of that operation can you talk about? What was your role in the planning stage? GH: Planning-wise, as a platoon leader, I didn't have a real high-level involvement. I did help the battalion develop their scheme of maneuver and how my teams could support it. That's what we focused on. JF: For people who have never served in the military or never been in an infantry unit or platoon, can you paint a picture of what you guys were doing -- maybe on a mission or even on a daily basis? GH: At that time we were planning for Operation Anaconda and the platoon sergeant and I spent a lot of time up at the operations center poring over maps, working with the operations officer (S3) to try and determine where the best place to locate my reconnaissance and sniper teams were to support the battalion's scheme of maneuver.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tribal Ways of War: Combat Branch Conceptualizations of Warfare in the United States Army, 1983 - 1999
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2017 Tribal Ways of War: Combat Branch Conceptualizations of Warfare in the United States Army, 1983 - 1999 Stephenson, Harris Stephenson, H. (2017). Tribal Ways of War: Combat Branch Conceptualizations of Warfare in the United States Army, 1983 - 1999 (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/28527 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/3700 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Tribal Ways of War: Combat Branch Conceptualizations of Warfare in the United States Army, 1983 – 1999 by Harris Robinson Stephenson A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF STRATEGIC STUDIES GRADUATE PROGRAM IN MILITARY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA APRIL, 2017 © Harris Robinson Stephenson 2017 Abstract: This thesis addresses the questions: how did the three primary combat branches, or tribes, of the United States Army – the Infantry, Armor, and Artillery – conceptualize warfare from 1983 to 1999? Additionally, how does that relate to the Army’s military culture, and strategic environment? Primary research of the Infantry, Armor, and Artillery’s professional journals is used to understand how intra-organizational units’ conceptualizations of warfare related and interacted with the international system, the American national security apparatus, and the Army’s military culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Combat Branch Conceptualizations of Warfare in the United States Army, 1983 - 1999
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2017 Tribal Ways of War: Combat Branch Conceptualizations of Warfare in the United States Army, 1983 - 1999 Stephenson, Harris Stephenson, H. (2017). Tribal Ways of War: Combat Branch Conceptualizations of Warfare in the United States Army, 1983 - 1999 (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/28527 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/3700 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Tribal Ways of War: Combat Branch Conceptualizations of Warfare in the United States Army, 1983 – 1999 by Harris Robinson Stephenson A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF STRATEGIC STUDIES GRADUATE PROGRAM IN MILITARY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA APRIL, 2017 © Harris Robinson Stephenson 2017 Abstract: This thesis addresses the questions: how did the three primary combat branches, or tribes, of the United States Army – the Infantry, Armor, and Artillery – conceptualize warfare from 1983 to 1999? Additionally, how does that relate to the Army’s military culture, and strategic environment? Primary research of the Infantry, Armor, and Artillery’s professional journals is used to understand how intra-organizational units’ conceptualizations of warfare related and interacted with the international system, the American national security apparatus, and the Army’s military culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Toppling the Taliban: Air-Ground Operations in Afghanistan, October
    Toppling the Taliban Air-Ground Operations in Afghanistan, October 2001–June 2002 Walter L. Perry, David Kassing C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr381 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Perry, Walter L., author. | Kassing, David, author. Title: Toppling the Taliban : air-ground operations in Afghanistan, October 2001/June 2002 / Walter L. Perry, David Kassing. Other titles: Air-ground operations in Afghanistan, October 2001/June 2002 Description: Santa Monica, CA : RAND, [2015] | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2015044123 (print) | LCCN 2015044164 (ebook) | ISBN 9780833082657 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780833086822 (ebook) | ISBN 9780833086839 (epub) | ISBN 9780833086846 ( prc) Subjects: LCSH: Operation Enduring Freedom, 2001- | Afghan War, 2001---Campaigns. | Afghan War, 2001---Aerial operations, American. | Postwar reconstruction—Afghanistan. Classification: LCC DS371.412 .P47 2015 (print) | LCC DS371.412 (ebook) | DDC 958.104/742—dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015044123 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2015 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover photo by SFC Fred Gurwell, U.S. Army Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights 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. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use.
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    Columbia University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Human Rights Studies Master of Arts Program Special Operations Forces: Guardians of Human Rights and Our Constitutional Legitimacy Michael Paul Heitz Thesis Advisors: Michel Paradis – Lecturer in Law, Columbia Law School & Georgetown Law Center Philip C. Bobbitt – Professor of Law, Columbia Law School & University of Texas School of Law Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Arts June 2018 1 Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................................ 4 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 5 II. VALUES & AN AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS............................... 7 III. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL GROWTH INTO THE 21st CENTURY AND BEYOND ........................ 17 IV. TERROR & TERRORISM ......................................................................................................................... 22 A. GLOBALIZED, DECENTRALIZED TERROR ......................................................................................... 27 V. PRECLUSION, DETERRENCE, AND NEW WAR AIMS ........................................................................... 32 VI. JSOC AND SPECIAL OPERATIONS CAPABILITIES ................................................................................... 36 VII. Conclusion
    [Show full text]
  • Mil Rev Jul-Aug
    http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/milrvweb/july/edit.html From the Editor The more the world changes, the more it remains the same. Yes, today's smaller, predominately US-based Army, deploys on more real-world missions and keeps soldiers away from their families more than at any time in the recent past. However, the need for a well-equipped, well-trained force manned by quality people and led by skilled leaders remains constant. This expanded edition o f Military Review looks at how soldiers have responded to two of these missions-Haiti and Bosnia-and explores their possible impact on doctrine and the conduct of future operations. Lieutenant General L.D. Holder, the former US Army Combined Arms Center commander, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, culminates these operational retrospectives with a review of the Center for Army Lessons Learned mission and its value to our Army. Even as the Army executes 1990s-style humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, its senior leaders are planning for the Army of tomorrow throug hForce XXI and th e Army After Next. Force XXI's technological aspects have been much discussed, and the Army is studying its implications for force structure, doctrine and training via the Advanced Warfighting Experiments at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California. But what wil Forcel XXI mean for future leaders? Will it change the way units build cohesion and teamwork? What will it mean for soldiers? How will it change their lives? Will it fundamentally alter combat's human element? Army Chief of Staff General Dennis J. Reimer offers his perspective on the challenges ahead.
    [Show full text]
  • Not a Good Day to Die: the Untold Story of Afghanistan's Operation
    Notes on Afghanistan 22 March 2006 Not a Good Day to Die: The Untold Story of Afghanistan’s Operation Anaconda by Sean Naylor, Army Times April 18, 2005: 5:00 Presentation Discussants: Frederick W. Kagan, U.S. Military Academy at West Point Kalev Sepp, Naval Postgraduate School Moderator: Thomas Donnelly, AEI MR. DONNELLY: I would like to welcome everybody to American Enterprise Institute. My name is Tom Donnelly. I’m the head of defense and national security studies here, such as that may be. Actually, today’s event is a great pleasure for me in that our featured speaker is Sean Naylor, a reporter for Army Times. In my previous life, I was editor of Army Times, and indeed I hired Sean at the paper way back in 1990. I had to double-check with Sean to remember the date. But he’s been a really superb writer of military affairs, particularly of the United States Army, really since even before the day I hired him. The book that he’s here to tell us about – the cover of which you see displayed on the screen – gets two thumbs up from me. I just completed reading it over the weekend. And it shows, really, every one of Sean’s strengths. Particularly it’s a superb piece of military reporting, as Sean will divulge and should be quite obvious. A lot of the fighting done in Afghanistan and particularly in Operation Anaconda was done by America’s most elite units. Again, the reporters in the audience and on the podium will understand how difficult it is to report on those communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Operations Forces Future Challenges and Opportunities
    STRATEGY FOR THE LONG H AU L Special Operations Forces Future Challenges and Opportunities BY ROBERT MARTINAGE II CSBA > Strategy for the Long Haul About the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute es- tablished to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy and resource allocation. CSBA provides timely, impartial and insightful analyses to senior decision makers in the executive and legislative branches, as well as to the media and the broader national security community. CSBA encourages thoughtful partici- pation in the development of national security strategy and policy, and in the allocation of scarce human and capital re- sources.ABOUT CSBA’s CSBA analysis and outreach focus on key ques- tions related to existing and emerging threats to US national security. Meeting these challenges will require transform- ing the national security establishment, and we are devoted to helping achieve this end. About the Author Robert Martinage, Senior Fellow, is an expert on defense strategy, military modernization, special operations, mili- tary revolutions, and advanced technology and future war- fare. He has over fourteen years of experience designing, conducting, and analyzing wargames for the Department of Defense (DoD). He has written several research papers that have been circulated widely among senior DoD officials. He recently authored The Global War on Terrorism: An Assess- ment, which was highlighted by the Council on Foreign Rela- tions as a “must-read,” and co-authored Dissuasion Strategy (with Andrew Krepinevich).
    [Show full text]
  • The Lessons of Anaconda - the New York Times
    2/14/2019 The Lessons of Anaconda - The New York Times Archives | 2003 The Lessons of Anaconda By SEAN NAYLOR MARCH 2, 2003 A year ago today a couple of hundred American soldiers found themselves greeting the dawn aboard Chinook helicopters weaving through mountain passes toward rocky landing zones 8,000 feet high. They were the first wave of troops to enter eastern Afghanistan's forbidding Shah-i-Kot Valley as part of Operation Anaconda. The largest battle involving conventional United States troops to be fought in Afghanistan, Anaconda should serve as a cautionary tale for Americans convinced that our technological superiority is a foolproof defense against the element of surprise in the mountains of Afghanistan, the streets of Baghdad or on any other future battlefield. The first hint that forces from Al Qaeda were gathering in the Shah-i-Kot Valley came in December 2001 from Special Forces soldiers operating out of the nearby town of Gardez. Throughout January and February, the Americans compiled an intelligence picture of the valley that suggested 150 to 250 Qaeda fighters were living among about 800 civilians in three villages on the valley floor. These fighters -- including Arabs, Chechens, Uzbeks and Uighur Chinese -- had escaped from Tora Bora, the Qaeda stronghold to the north, and were now preparing to launch a counteroffensive against the provisional government of Hamid Karzai and his American protectors. The intelligence indicated they were armed with little more than a few heavy machine guns. At first, Special Forces soldiers thought they could handle the operation themselves. But as estimates of the enemy force grew, Lt.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan
    Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan A Case Study of Adaptation in Battle Case Studies in National Security Transformation Number 5 Richard Kugler February 2007 Sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Forces Transformation and Resources Prepared by the Center for Technology and National Security Policy i The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University, the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government. All information and sources for this paper were drawn from unclassified materials. Dr. Richard L. Kugler is a consultant to the Center for Technology and National Security Policy. His specialty is U.S. defense strategy, global security affairs, and NATO. He advises senior echelons of the Office of Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and the interagency community. An operations research analyst and political scientist, he holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. ii Introduction In his memoirs, American Soldier, former U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander General Tommy Franks, USA, (Ret.) portrayed Operation Anaconda, as an “absolute and unqualified success,” but one in which the original U.S. military battle plan “didn’t survive first contact with the enemy.”1 General Franks’ apt portrayal provides the framework for this case study of Operation Anaconda, which took place in the Shahikot Valley of eastern Afghanistan during early March 2002. The goal of Operation Anaconda was to root out enemy Taliban and al Qaeda forces that had gathered in this valley following their earlier defeats in the initial three months of the war in Afghanistan.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Power Against Terror: America's Conduct of Operation Enduring
    THE ARTS This PDF document was made available CHILD POLICY from www.rand.org as a public service of CIVIL JUSTICE the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit NATIONAL SECURITY research organization providing POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY objective analysis and effective SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY solutions that address the challenges SUBSTANCE ABUSE facing the public and private sectors TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY around the world. TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. "ENJAMIN3,AMBETH 0REPAREDFOR5NITED3TATES#ENTRAL#OMMAND!IR&ORCES !PPROVEDFORPUBLICRELEASEDISTRIBUTIONUNLIMITED
    [Show full text]
  • Secret Weapon: High-Value Target Teams As an Organizational Innovation Strategic Perspectives 4
    STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 4 Secret Weapon: High-value Target Teams as an Organizational Innovation by Christopher J. Lamb and Evan Munsing Center for Strategic Research Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is National Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes the Center for Strategic Research, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Center for Complex Operations, and Center for Strategic Conferencing. The military and civilian analysts and staff who comprise INSS and its subcomponents execute their mission by performing research and analysis, publication, conferences, policy support, and outreach. The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Unified Combatant Commands, to support the national strategic components of the academic programs at NDU, and to perform outreach to other U.S. Government agencies and to the broader national security community. Cover: U.S. Special Operations Command Rangers conduct mission in Iraq, 2005. Photo courtesy of U.S. Special Operations Command Secret Weapon Secret Weapon: High-value Target Teams as an Organizational Innovation By Christopher J. Lamb and Evan Munsing Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 4 Series Editor: Phillip C. Saunders National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. March 2011 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government. Cleared for public release; distribution unlimited.
    [Show full text]