Print

INTRODUCTION xiii behind the United Nations was that if nations were to come together, as a body, there would be greater opportunity for peace among nations through diplomacy nations would be less likely to want to go to war with other UN members. A con- cern in the post–Cold War era, and early in the twenty-first century, where there is but one remaining superpower, is how effective will international institutions remain, and how reliable and confident will alliances be in an ever-more dangerous and uncertain world. For these two reasons, among many others, it is important to explore conflict and war around the world in order to see how the landscape has changed since the end of the Cold War, and is changing in the twenty-first century. This book explores war and conflict through ten different topical areas, each of which will highlight eight countries in demonstrating, among other things, the complexities of national interests and security, the integration of new technology, information systems, and tactics and rules of engagement in hostile situations. Subject-matter experts, who have specific research interests in each of the topical areas, will add to the discussion of why it is important to explore war and conflict around the world through the prism of specific nations and their general per- spective of the areas presented in this work. The following brief overview is not intended as an exhaustive description of what each of the authors will provide in their respective chapters. But it is, however, an important summary of why these specific topics are relevant to the discussion on war and conflict. Anti-American Sentiment Not everybody or every country likes the United States. It is difficult for many Americans to understand why a country that many consider to be a champion of democracy and liberty, that is benevolent to allies and adversaries alike, and a country that projects strength through peace can be so disliked and unappreciated by so many. It is not clear what others expect the role of the United States in the post–Cold War era, as the only remaining superpower, to be some twenty years hence. Indeed, it may not have been clear what America viewed its role to be going into the twenty-first century. One thing is for sure: many of the institutions founded in the twentieth century, during the Cold War, still exist and perhaps for the same reason. For instance, John Lewis Gaddis (2011), professor of military and naval history at Yale University, argues that as early as 1993, just four years after the Iron Curtain fell, symbolically dismantling the Soviet Union, President Bill Clinton’s administration began exploring the idea of expanding NATO east- ward to include such countries as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, all against Russia’s objections. Gaddis goes on to provide that in 1997, the famous American diplomat George F. Kennan, by this time very late in his esteemed life at the age of ninety-four, said that expanding NATO would be the “most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era” (Gaddis 2011). Indeed, twenty years after Kennan’s prognostications, they appear to have been quite accu- rate. According to Matthew Symonds (2018), The Economist’s defense and security editor, both China and Russia appear to reject America’s dominant position in