The threat posed by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is a neglected and under-prioritized problem across the US government, requiring a dramatic change of approach. Most proposals for Goldwater-Nichols reform focus on geography, either increasing or decreasing the number of geographic commands. Based on our personal experience as Joint military planners at strategic-level headquarters, we argue that the change needs to go further, focusing on global national security problems instead of geography. This article’s analysis and conclusions will provoke conversation across the national security enterprise about how the United States competes with multiple global threats.Keywords: North Korea, South Korea, Goldwater-Nichols reform, National Defense Strategy, force structureDisclaimer: This podcast was recorded March 28, 2025, prior to the election of South Korea’s current president, Lee Jae Myung, in June of 2025.Stephanie Crider (Host)You are listening to Decisive Point (https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/SSI-Media/Podcasts/Decisive-Point-Podcast/). The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the guests and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.I’m talking remotely today with Justin Malzac, coauthor with Rene A. Mahomed of “Korea: The Enduring [Policy] Blindspot (https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss4/4/),” which you can find in the Winter 2024–25 issue of Parameters. Malzac is a senior information planner and policy adviser for the Department of Defense in Korea. He’s also a historian with a focus on East Asia. His history work on Korea has been published in the International Journal of Korean Studies and other venues. Welcome to Decisive Point, Justin.Justin MalzacThanks for having me, Stephanie. Unfortunately, my coauthor, Rene, could not be here today due to scheduling issues, but I’m going to try to make sure that I bring up some of the points that he wanted to mention here.HostSet the stage for our listeners, please, and give us a brief overview of the article.MalzacSo, our article looked at Korea—North Korea, in particular—as a policy problem, and argued that it is a under-prioritized issue. We did a comparison of North Korea and the issues and the threats emanating from North Korea and also Russia and the degradation of Russia in Ukraine, making an argument that strategic prioritization needs to be shifted and that North Korea needs to be elevated as a more severe threat. We also provided one recommendation on how you might do that through restructuring the combatant commands. For today, I wanted to really focus on the problem-framing piece of it—understanding the North Korea problem and understanding how we got here.HostLet’s start with the impeachment issue. Can you put the current South Korean impeachment issue into context for us?MalzacYes. So, obviously one of the biggest news events coming out of South Korea recently is the impeachment of President Yoon [Suk-Yeol]. It’s hard to talk about South Korea as an ally or the Korean Peninsula as a strategic battle space without addressing that elephant in the room. There’s a lot that has been published on the impeachment issue in a variety of media with a lot of very, I don’t want to say inflammatory, but headlines that are there to draw attention. So, for example, in January an article was released in Foreign Affairs entitled “

As a key battleground in the global struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, Africa offers US policymakers insights to navigate competing interests and power dynamics. For a comprehensive view of this competition, this article analyzes American, Chinese, French, and Russian geopolitical strategies; employs a geopolitical analysis of current events, diplomatic maneuvers, and historical lessons; and uses policy documents, expert opinions, and case studies of geopolitical engagements. It then provides actionable policy recommendations for fostering stable, long-term US relations in Africa and offers strategic perspectives on managing the global power competition applicable to broader national security and diplomatic contexts.Keywords: US policy in Africa, global order and power dynamics, strategic insights for policymakers, Russia-China relations in Africa, proxy conflicts and diplomatic maneuversStephanie Crider (Host)You are listening to Decisive Point. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the guests and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.My guests today are Hamid Lellou and Dr. Amin Tarzi. Lellou is the author of “US Relations with Africa and the New Cold War,” which was published in the Winter 2024–25 issue of Parameters. Lellou is an independent analyst specializing in conflict resolution and regional dynamics in the Middle East and Africa. Tarzi is the professor of strategic studies at the Marine Corps War College. His teaching and research include the Middle East, hybrid actors, major power competition in the region, and evolving competition and contestation in the Red Sea, Black Sea, and Mediterranean regions.Welcome to Decisive Point.Dr. Amin TarziThank you for having us.Hamid LellouThank you.HostHamid, give us a brief overview of your article.LellouMy article discusses evolving dynamics between the United States and the African nations in a very particular area and time. We have [the] United States, and in the title, as you saw, I added “and the new Cold War,” referring to other [superpowers] including Russia and China. When you invited me to this podcast, and I looked back to my article, I thought if I had to change or add something, I would do it in the title. And rather [than] saying, “US-Africa relations,” I would say “US-Africa Win-Win Relations.”In the paper, I talk about the approaches [to Africa], mainly the Chinese approach and the Russian approach. On the one hand, I described the Chinese approach as development/infrastructure diplomacy and, on the other hand, we have [Russian] security diplomacy. As the US, what should be our approach, knowing that the interests are different, approaches are different, values are different, which [puts] the United States in a very unfair situation. And, whatever things we’ll be talking [about] on Africa, in the back of my mind, I look at two different Africas. I look at the Africa from the academic and official point of view, the formal Africa, but there is also the informal Africa.HostHamid, please outline how African nations are addressing their security issues.LellouThat’s a great question. Again, [regarding] African nations, if I said that they are doing it in a very specific way, it means I will imply that they’re doing it together. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. So,

Academic military historians, government institutions, and defense practitioners have unique purposes for advancing the study of war that influence the way they consume and produce history. Although there is substantial scholarship covering how the discipline of military history has changed since the late nineteenth century, the literature surrounding why it changes and how it is used is less plentiful. Using primary and secondary sources to contextualize debates between historians, this study traces major developments in military historiography, considers the US Army’s relationship with its history, and explores potential connections between a history’s purpose and its use for military professionals.E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil (mailto:usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil) to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Keywords: Whig history, New History, American Historical Association, US military history, Society for Military HistoryStephanie Crider (Host)You are listening to Decisive Point. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the guests and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.I’m talking with US Army Major Michael P. Ferguson and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Professor Richard Kohn about military history.Ferguson is a PhD student and advanced civil schooling participant in the Department of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He’s coauthor of The Military Legacy of Alexander the Great: Lessons for the Information Age, published in 2024. He’s also the author of “The American Way of Studying War: What Is It Good For?” and that’s what we’re here to talk about today.Kohn has focused on military history generally, emphasizing national security and military policy strategy and the American experience with war making and the connections between war, the military, and American society. In recent years, his concentration has been on current civil-military relations, particularly civilian control of the military.Thank you for joining me remotely from North Carolina today.Major Michael P. FergusonThanks for having us.Richard KohnSpecial pleasure.HostWe’re here to talk about why military history remains relevant, and we’re going to talk about its values for individuals, institutions, and society.Why has military history been so controversial?FergusonIt’s probably something that’s not as well known outside the halls of history departments on universities. Military history in general has a pretty turbulent background, and the way I open up the article, which I thought was kind of a fitting alpha, or beginning, to the story of military history is looking at the turn of the century in 1900 and Edward Eggleston, who was the president of the American Historical Association at the time. And, in 190Z, he drafted a speech to be given at the annual conference. Unfortunately, he was never able to deliver it because he fell ill and passed away the following year in 1902. But, his speech touches on this concept of new history and a lot of [lines ] from the speech really reflect this movement of new history—of looking at the smaller things and moving away from classical history, which was essentially “Ivory Tower” history looking at big policies and wars and politics. But, it also reflects this turn-of-century way of thinking at the time, where we’re on the back end of the Enlightenment. Mankind had supposedly liberated themselves from the shackles of predestination. And, you had Darwin’s theories taking traction, and it came out in 1859 on the origin of species. And then,

The Indications and Warnings subfield of intelligence has traditionally divided warnings into a dichotomy of “ambiguous” and “unambiguous” that gives policymakers a false sense of security. In this episode, Regan Copple examines why unambiguous warn...

In this episode, Richard D. Hooker argues that the historical assessment of Dwight D. Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in World War II lacks objectivity and balance. While we will never know if other generals would have outperformed Eisenhower, several leaders were available—all senior to Eisenhower at the outbreak of the war and with superior professional résumés.E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil (mailto:usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil) to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Podcast record date: November 7, 2024Keywords: Dwight D. Eisenhower, World War II, strategy, command, Joint campaignEpisode TranscriptStephanie Crider (Host)You are listening to Decisive Point (https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/SSI-Media/Podcasts/Decisive-Point-Podcast/). The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the guests and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.I'm talking with Richard D. Hooker today, the author of “Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander: A Reappraisal,” which you can find in the Autumn 2024 (https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss3/) issue of Parameters. Hooker is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council and senior associate at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center. He is the former National Security Council senior director for Europe and Russia and authored The High Ground: Leading in Peace and War, which was published by Casemate in 2023.Welcome to Decisive Point, Richard.Richard D. HookerThank you. It's great to be here.HostHow did Eisenhower’s lack of prior combat command experience affect his performance as Supreme Allied Commander?HookerWell, I think first of all, it is important to give some credit where credit is due. Eisenhower began the war as a lieutenant colonel and rose in some 23 months to four stars. As the Supreme Commander he superintended, really, the largest Joint campaign in probably military history up to that point, which was ultimately successful in a little over 10 months. So, that’s a major achievement.I think what we’re wrestling with here [is] was he the best qualified person, and how did his background help him or hinder him in the performance of those remarkable duties? And, I think it’s fair to say that although he was clearly a highly intelligent and experienced middle-grade officer, the lack of professional experience in command of larger formations—and probably a lack of combat experience, as well—didn’t serve him as well as it otherwise might have done. There were other officers, in my opinion, who were far more experienced and senior who possibly could have done a little bit better job, and we can talk about that as we go forward in this discussion.HostSure, I’m looking forward to hearing about that. Tell me, what were some of the key strategic errors that are attributed to Eisenhower, and how did they affect the course of the war?HookerI think there are a number of those that are discussed in the article in Parameters and most of them have to do, in my opinion, with seizing or not seizing opportunities.So, the first major error that I see in the European campaign in 1944 is a missed opportunity to trap two German field armies at Falaise during the breakout from the Normandy beachhead. At this time, Eisenhower is still in the UK [United Kingdom], and the overall ground commander is [British General Bernard Montgomery, commander of 21st Army Group]. So,

In this episode, Colin D. Robinson discusses American and Western liberal ideas (ideological views) and politics in relation to the obstacles faced in rebuilding the Afghan and Iraqi armies. This podcast reviews the diff...

In this episode of Decisive Point, authors Michael T. Hackett and John A. Nagl delve into insights from the article “A Long, Hard Year: Russia-Ukraine War Lessons Learned 2023.” They analyze the evolution of warfare tactics between the first and second year of the Russia-Ukraine War, highlighting the shift from rapid maneuvers to trench warfare characterized by saturation and attrition. The discussion emphasizes the significance of adaptability for military strategists in the United States and NATO, particularly in response to Russia’s strategic use of mercenaries like the Wagner Group. Hackett and Nagl explore the implications of a transparent battlefield shaped by modern technologies and the contrasting command structures of Ukraine and Russia, showcasing the effectiveness of decentralized command. Additionally, the critical role of airpower and the future of Ukraine in the context of Western support are key themes, underscoring the vital lessons for contemporary military strategists.E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil (mailto:usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil) to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Podcast record date: September 5, 2024Keywords: culture, human domain, cross-cultural competence, military education You’re listening to Decisive Point (https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/SSI-Media/Podcasts/Decisive-Point-Podcast/). The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the guests and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government. I’m in the studio with Dr. John A. Nagl today and joining us virtually is Michael T. Hackett. Nagl and Hackett are the authors of “A Long, Hard Year, Russia-Ukraine War Lessons Learned 2023 (https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss3/6/),” which was published in the Autumn 2024 issue of Parameters. Nagl, the director of the Russia-Ukraine War integrated research project, is a retired Army officer and a professor of war-fighting studies at the US Army War College. Hackett is a foreign service officer at the US Department of State and served as the chief of staff for the integrated research project that studied the second year of the Russia-Ukraine War. He is a distinguished graduate of the US Army War College class of 2024. Welcome to Decisive Point, John and Mike.Dr. John A. NaglThank you, Stephanie. It’s good to be with you.Michael T. HackettGreat to be here.HostLet’s just jump right in and get started here. How has the approach to war and its tactics changed from the first-year study of the war to the second-year study?NaglI’ll take that if I can. I was asked by General [Paul E.] Funk and the Training and Doctrine Command during the first summer of the Russo-Ukrainian War [Russia-Ukraine War] to try to examine that war for lessons learned for the Training and Doctrine Command of the US Army, which General Funk then led, and started the academic year that graduated in 2023 by looking then at the first year of the Russo-Ukrainian War [Russia-Ukraine War] over the course of 2022.And, Mike and I have now authored a study that is a capstone to a broader study of the second year of the war. And, I think I’d characterize the first year of the war as a war of maneuver. It was the year that Russia invaded and then that Ukraine counterattacked, broadly speaking, erasing the majority of Russia’s gains from the first month of the war. And so, the first year studied a war of movement. The second year of the war, the year 2023, covered in the article that Mike and I have published,

In this episode, Colonel Daniel W. Henk (US Army, retired), PhD, and Dr. Allison Abbe discuss cultural education in the US military. They emphasize the importance of cultural capability across the competition and conflict continuum and address how the Department of Defense can build on service culture centers’ efforts to address the LREC skills military personnel need to work effectively across cultural boundaries, whether during conflict against an adversary or in interoperability with allies and partners.E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil (mailto:usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil) to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Podcast record date: August 27, 2024Keywords: culture, human domain, cross-cultural competence, military educationEpisode transcriptStephanie Crider (host)You are listening to Decisive Point (https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/SSI-Media/Podcasts/Decisive-Point-Podcast/). The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the guests and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.I'm talking remotely with Colonel Daniel W. Henk and Dr. Allison Abbe, authors of “Restoring Priority on Cultural Skill Sets for Modern Military Professionals (https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss3/8/),” which you can find in the Autumn 2024 (https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss3/1/) issue of Parameters.Henk, US Army retired, holds a PhD in social anthropology. His research interests include peace operations, human and environmental security, and civil-military relations. He was the founding director of the Air Force Culture and Language Center.Abbe is a professor of organizational studies and the Matthew B. Ridgway Chair of Leadership Studies at the US Army War College. Her research focuses on [the] development of leadership and intercultural skills in national security leaders.Welcome to Decisive Point, Dan and Allison.COL Dan Henk (US Army, retired)Thank you.Dr. Allison AbbeThanks for hosting.HostWhy are human relations skills important to US military operations or partnerships in today’s culturally complex environments? And, if you could, briefly cite a couple of specific examples to illustrate your answer.HenkA compelling argument could really be made that in conflict in the early twenty-first century, managing human relations has risen to a level of importance that we’ve never seen before. And for the military professional, doing the nation’s business really now means an ability to understand and to work very well with very diverse communities under the constant scrutiny and instant reporting of the information age and, often, unfortunately, with malign actors waiting and watching for our missteps. Poor command of human relations skills could very easily lead to mission failure at any level of responsibility and across the entire spectrum of military involvements.If you don’t mind, let me just offer a couple of examples.In 2004, not long after our latest intervention in Iraq, a very perceptive young Marine documented American military deficiencies in working across cultural boundaries at the tactical level in Iraq. His article appeared in Small Wars Journal and was titled “Marines Are from Mars, Iraqis Are from Venus.” He made the point, based on his observation, that it is very difficult to work with people when you are clueless about their take on reality, about their norms, about their values, about their expectations, and about their grievances and their insecurities.But, you know,

In this episode, Dr. C. Anthony Pfaff, interim director of the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College, discusses his work on managing escalation during the Israel-Hamas War. The conversation covers the complexities of Israel’s deterrence strategies, the proposed ceasefire, and the implications of Hamas’ potential power dynamics akin to Hezbollah. Pfaff highlights the delicate balance required in deterring Iranian support for Hamas and the importance of diplomatic efforts in establishing sustainable ceasefire conditions and examines how Israel’s strategies can inform global conflict resolution, offering insights into the intricate dynamics of military and diplomatic engagement in international relations.E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Podcast record date: September 5, 2024Keywords: Israel, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Israeli Defense Forces, violent extremist organizationsDownload the full transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/06/2003579418/-1/-1/0/DP5-25-PFAFF-TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/06/2003579418/-1/-1/0/DP5-25-PFAFF-TRANSCRIPT.PDF)

In this episode, Steven Metz discusses his article, “The Challenges of Next-Gen Insurgency,” which was published in the Autumn 2024 issue of Parameters. We discuss how generational conflict may drive future insurgencies, particularly tensions between youth and older generations fueled by frustration and radical ideologies. Metz emphasizes the importance of narrative control in modern cybersecurity and information warfare, suggesting that this shift will redefine counterinsurgency strategies. He also explores how insurgents increasingly focus on undermining state authority, presenting challenges for state responses. This conversation urges a reevaluation of traditional counterinsurgency methods to better address evolving threats, with Metz’s insights set to be further detailed in his forthcoming book.E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Record date: 22 August 2024Keywords: insurgency, Cold War, people’s war, Mao Zedong, social media, al-QaedaDownload the full transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/05/2003578522/-1/-1/0/DP5-24-Metz-Transcript.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Nov/05/2003578522/-1/-1/0/DP5-24-Metz-Transcript.PDF)

In this episode, Dr. Jeff McManus discusses his article, “Operating Successfully Within the Bureaucracy Domain of Warfare: Part Two.” He addresses seven key fundamentals for navigating bureaucracy, emphasizing the importance of principles, perspective, and prediction in policy making. McManus highlights effective persuasion strategies, the role of privacy in building trust, and how programming and budgeting influence policy formulation, as well as the significance of objectivity and social media’s impact on credibility, providing valuable insights for professionals navigating complex bureaucratic environments.Read part one of the series here: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss2/11/ (https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss2/11/)Listen to the podcast about part one of this series here: https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/SSI-Media/Recent-Publications/Article/3900805/operating-successfully-within-the-bureaucracy-domain-of-warfare-part-one/ (https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/SSI-Media/Recent-Publications/Article/3900805/operating-successfully-within-the-bureaucracy-domain-of-warfare-part-one/)E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Podcast record date: July 15, 2024Keywords: bureaucracy, fundamentals, policy, politics, strategyDownload the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/29/2003572891/-1/-1/0/DP5-23-MCMANUS-TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/29/2003572891/-1/-1/0/DP5-23-MCMANUS-TRANSCRIPT.PDF)

With the 2024 US presidential election fast approaching, Dr. Carrie A. Lee takes on the topic of retired flag officer endorsements and political campaigns and how public servant endorsements influence public trust in the military. Is there a way for active duty and retired military servicemembers to navigate their roles in political discourse without undermining democratic principles? How risky is it for retired military leaders to endorse political candidates considering the perception of military impartiality?  E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.  Keywords: political endorsements, retired general officers, non-partisanship, norm-based approach, civil-military trustDownload the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/23/2003569803/-1/-1/0/DP5-22_LEE-TRANSCRIPT.PDF

In this episode, Patricia M. Shields, a Regents Professor at Texas State University, discusses the evolving dynamics between military institutions and civilian society over the last 50 years. She explores key themes such as recruitment strategies, veteran welfare, and the impacts of pivotal events like the Vietnam War and 9/11 on civil-military relations. Shields highlights the shift to an all-volunteer force, the influence of the women’s rights movement, and the challenges faced by servicemembers today, as well as the balance of civil-military relations and the implications for national defense. E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: Afghanistan War, Armed Forces & Society, Cold War, COVID, veteransDownload the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/07/2003559918/-1/-1/0/DP-5-21-SHIELDS-TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/07/2003559918/-1/-1/0/DP-5-21-SHIELDS-TRANSCRIPT.PDF)

The United States is experiencing an era characterized by civil-military tension and conflict. From the increasing politicization of the military, to declining public trust in the military and the recruiting crisis, to the erosion of norms meant to protect civilian control to a perceived lack of accountability within the profession, healthy civil-military relations in America today are under assault. In response, the US Army War College established the Civil-Military Relations Center (CMRC) in summer 2022 to “sponsor and promote the development of a healthy, sustainable relationship between the American military, society, and political leaders through education, research, and outreach.Read the article here: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss2/13/ (https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss2/13/)E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Keywords: civil-military relations, General Charles Q. Brown Jr., General Randy A. George, Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth, National Security Strategy

In this episode, Majors Brennan Devereaux and Cliff R. Parsons discuss the influence of professional military writing on strategy and decision making. Devereaux previews his article on military discourse, while Parsons discusses his recent work on deterring Russian nuclear threats. They touch on collaborative writing and the significance of writing during the current interwar period, emphasizing initiatives to encourage writing among military personnel. Both majors share their personal journeys and mentorship and the development of essential communication skills.E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Keywords: General Randy A. George, Michael R. Weimer, Harding Project, professional discourseDownload the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Sep/24/2003552946/-1/-1/0/DP-5-19-PARSONS-DEVERAUX-TRANSCRIPT.PDF

In this episode, Major General David C. Hill, Dr. David D. Dworak, and Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Blair Wilcox discuss their article, “The Forward Edge of the Fifth US Army War College.” They address the evolution of the War College, focusing on curriculum adaptations in response to technological advancements and modern warfare challenges. They highlight the importance of personalized education and the value of multinational collaboration in fostering effective leadership and the necessity for continuous evolution in military education to prepare strategic leaders for future complexities. This episode sheds light on the transformative journey of the US Army War College and emphasizes the collaborative spirit necessary for effective leadership in a rapidly changing world. Read the article here: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss3/3/ (https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss3/3/) E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article.Keywords: Joint Force, professional military education, information age, human-machine teaming, war gamingDownload the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Sep/09/2003540000/-1/-1/0/DP_HILL-DWORAK-WILCOX-TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Sep/09/2003540000/-1/-1/0/DP_HILL-DWORAK-WILCOX-TRANSCRIPT.PDF)

In this episode of Decisive Point, Dr. Jeff McManus, an expert in strategic studies, explores his compelling argument for recognizing bureaucracy as a sixth domain of warfare. The conversation highlights how this perspective can reshape the interactions of military officers and policymakers within the intricate bureaucratic landscape. McManus articulates key fundamentals for adeptly navigating this realm, emphasizing the complex nature of politics, the impact of individual personalities, and the unique pressures faced in policymaking. He discusses the importance of nonpartisanship, trust, and resilience. McManus’s insights challenge the view of bureaucracy as simply an obstacle, positioning it instead as an essential battleground for strategy and success. Read the article here: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss2/11/ E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: bureaucracy, fundamentals, policy, politics, strategy

The Army has made insufficient progress in arming its officers with science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and management (STEM+M) knowledge. The contemporary battlefield is faster paced, technologically enabled, and data driven, requiring officers to possess more skills, knowledge, and experience. We examine the Army’s history with STEM education and show that, in terms of education, the current Army officer corps has fallen behind its requirements for technology-enabled forces and modern society. We conclude with recommendations on how the Army can close the STEM+M education gap through advances in higher education and adopting talent management practices. Read the article here: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss2/10/ E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: STEM+M, education, technology, human capital, higher educationDownload the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Aug/28/2003534314/-1/-1/0/DP-16_ROBERT_WOJTASZEK_TRANSCRIPT.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2024/Aug/28/2003534314/-1/-1/0/DP-16_ROBERT_WOJTASZEK_TRANSCRIPT.PDF)

Oleh Hukovskyy, a Ukrainian military officer and psychiatrist, shares insights on the Russia-Ukraine War’s impact on soldiers’ mental health. He discusses the daily challenges faced by troops and highlights signs of post-combat stressors. Hukovskyy coauthored an article on stress management for soldiers that draws on Western principles and emphasizes on-site counseling and timely interventions. He introduces the concept of combat path debriefing, focusing on unit history to foster a warrior mindset. Hukovskyy advocates for sharing knowledge in the military community to enhance psychological training and stresses the importance of customization in debriefing processes. Read the article here: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol54/iss2/5/ E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: debriefing, resilience, combat stress, psychology, recovery

US Army Colonel Thomas W. Spahr discusses the development and implementation of the AI model, Raven Sentry, to predict attacks on Afghan centers using unclassified data sources. He highlights the need for innovative solutions in Afghanistan as coalition presence waned. The success of Raven Sentry emphasizes the importance of leadership, collaboration with the commercial sector, and utilizing unclassified information for predictive intelligence. This experience showcases the potential of AI as a tool to enhance decision-making processes in intelligence analysis, stressing the value of human expertise alongside technological advancements. E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the genesis article. Keywords: artificial intelligence, Afghanistan, military intelligence, innovation, cultureDownload the transcript: https://media.defense.gov/2024/Jul/30/2003514388/-1/-1/0/DP-5-14-SPAHR-TRANSCRIPT.PDF