Blainey and the Bottom-Up Review: Increased Potential for Miscalculation and War in the 21st Century
Abstract
On 1 September, 1993, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell announced the results of the Clinton Administration's Bottom-up Review (BUR), to determine America's future defense needs. This analysis of the BUR identifies discrepancies with the methodology and underlying assumptions of the BUR. These flaws, in turn, resulted in serious deficiencies in the results of this important work. The BUR's point of departure for an examination of future defense needs was the 1991 demise of the Soviet Union. Rather than develop a comprehensive picture of the nature of war and peace in the 21st Century as a basis for force planning, the BUR assumes limited wars of the DESERT STORM variety are the model for future conflict. Contemporary scholars such as Samuel Huntington, John Keegan, and Alvin and Heidi Toffler disagree with this assumption. They point to a clash of civilizations in the next century and an increased potential for violent cultural conflict. Such conflicts tend to be protracted and costly, not limited. The BUR's assumption concerning peace fail the test of history as provided by Geoffery Blainey's exhaustive study of the causes of war and peace since 1700. The BUR's assumptions are that the best guarantors of peace are a thriving web of free trading relationships and an international partnership of democratic nations. As Blainey comments, free trade and democracy may have caused more international war than peace. The strategy, force structure and budget of the BUR actually increase the potential for international miscalculation and war.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- May 06, 1994
- Accession Number
- ADA284613
Entities
People
- John W. Nicholson Jr.
Organizations
- United States Army Command and General Staff College