This week, we have one final episode in our “Back to School” series highlighting another special program at the U.S. Army War College. The Advanced Regional Studies (ARS) program offers opportunities for students to meet the senior decision- and policy-makers of our allied and partner nations on their own turf. Daniel Krebs, the director of ARS, is in the studio to explain how a select number of students will travel abroad for study. He joins podcast editor Ron Granieri to discuss how students gain invaluable knowledge and understanding of the culture and mindset of these nations and their leaders by spending time in their countries and meeting with them face-to-face.
For more information about the Advanced Regional Studies program you can contact the director, Dr. Daniel Krebs daniel.krebs@armywarcollege.edu.
I think it is valuable that we not just have Foreign Area Officers, that we have more people in the force that have some deeper knowledge, understanding, strategic empathy and knowledge of strategic culture, the environment in the region…that sit at COCOMs that go to higher staff…and can be better advisers and ultimately better decision makers.
Podcast: Download
Daniel Krebs is an Associate Professor of Security Studies and Director of the Advanced Regional Studies Program in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the U.S. Army War College. He previously taught at the University of Louisville, Ky. His teaching and research focus on military history, strategy, theories of war, and European security and defense policies.
Ron Granieri is Professor of History at the U.S. Army War College and the Editor of A BETTER PEACE.
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or Department of Defense.
Photo Description: Clockwise from top left – AY24 Advanced Regional Studies students visiting Pnyx Hill, site of public debate in ancient Athens; engaging with Turkish Ambassador to Greece at the Turkish Embassy; at the U.S. Ambassador’s Residence, Athens.
Photo Credit: Courtesy of Dr. Michael Neiberg
Conflict today — whether we are talking about the “war on terror” conflict with the U.S./the West today, the “great power competition” conflict with the U.S./the West today, lesser state conflicts with the U.S./the West today and even the internal conflict occurring within the U.S./the West itself today — ALL of these such conflicts would seem to have a common aspect; this being, that these are conflicts with entities who (a) do not wish to be transformed more along ultra-modern/ultra-contemporary U.S./Western political, economic, social and/or value lines (they fear losing/have already lost power, influence, control, status, privilege, prestige, safety, security, etc., under these such arrangements) and, thus, who (b) are willing to use whatever means are available to them; this, to prevent these/to prevent further such unwanted and threatening transformations.
Given that the above would seem to encompass many/most of the important conflicts that the U.S./the West is involved in today, then might those who are allowed to visit various regions in the Advanced Regional Studies Program, might these folks (and their faculty supervisors?) wish to (a) ask questions of various diplomats, military leaders, government employees, etc., as to these such specific matters and, then, (b) compare notes later — as to the answers they receive — from the various regions that they were privileged to visit?
How might I preface such questions? As follows:
a. The positive relationships — both here at home and there abroad — between populations and their elites, between populations and their governments and between populations and their militaries — that were developed during the Old Cold War when (a) the Soviets/the communists were doing “transformation” (and, thus, posed the gravest threat to traditional social values, beliefs and institutions back then) and when (b) the U.S./the West, back then, could say that we opposed same. Note that:
b. These such positive relationships should not have been expected to endure; this when, post-the Old Cold War, the U.S./the West became the one’s seeking to do “transformation” (and, thus, came to pose the gravest threat to traditional social values, beliefs and institutions) and when (b) such nations as Russia and China could say that they opposed same. (This being, thus, why the rationale of “The End of History” fails?)
Thus, the questions that I might pose, these would fall within the New/Reverse Cold War context/perspective that I provide above.
Note that — from the New/Reverse Cold War perspective that I provide above — such things as “regional studies,” these would seem to be very important indeed, for example, so as to be able to continually gauge — in the various regions of the world —
a. Who is supporting the U.S./the West’s (and our partner and allied governments’) “transformative”/”development”/”modernization” missions. (And track the possible changing degree of this such support.) These such “support” personnel, generally speaking, being the more progressive elements of the world’s states and societies — and/or — those who believe that they will GAIN and/or RETAIN power, influence, control, etc., via such support?
And to be able to continually gauge — in the various regions of the world —
b. Who is threatened — and thus who will stand hard against — the U.S./the West’s (and our partner and allied governments’) “transformative”/”development”/”modernization” missions. (And track the possible changing degree of this such “resistance.”) These such “stand hard against” personnel, generally speaking, being the more conservative elements of the world’s states and societies — and/or — those who believe that they will LOSE power, influence, control, etc., via the U.S./the West’s such “pro-change” initiatives. (These such “stand hard against” folks also understanding that they can actually GAIN power, influence, control, followers, etc.; this, by claiming that they are the champions/the leaders/the protectors of the such things as traditional social values, beliefs and institutions?)
Regarding the seeming exceptional relevance and importance of the U.S. Army War College’s regional studies program — and advance regional studies program — is the above New/Reverse Cold War perspective helpful?