Organization:
Center on Contemporary Conflict (CCC)

orgunit.page.dateEstablished
orgunit.page.dateDissolved
City
Country
Description
The Naval Postgraduate School Center on Contemporary Conflict was the research wing of the Department of National Security Affairs (NSA) and specialized in the study of international relations, security policy, and regional studies.
Type
Website of the organization
ID

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 952
  • Publication
    Requirements for Deterrence: Two Challenging Scenarios; Strategic Insights, v. 8, issue 4 (September 2009)
    (Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School, 2009-09-01) Colby, Elbridge; Center on Contemporary Conflict (CCC); Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.); Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC)
  • Publication
    Defending the Arctic America's Challenge
    (Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.), 2011-04-22) Gaucher, Chris; Center on Contemporary Conflict (CCC)
    "The earth is changing our nation's security landscape and we need to adapt. Climate change, independent of responsibility and cause, is a large part of this change. When such a large change occurs with such a global impact, the rules change the game. This new game requires that we in the United States re-think how we adapt to this change. For example, climate change is impacting the Arctic ice region, opening up access to sea lanes that heretofore were never as accessible to global commerce as they are now. With increased movement of shipping and increased access to a whole new source of natural resources, these opportunities present unique challenges. This situation impacts our national security and we need to be ready. How should the United States address the threats to our national security presented to us by this new frontier? The U.S. Combatant Commanders (COCOM) currently responsible for this Area of Operational Responsibility (AOR) include U.S. European Command (USEUCOM), U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), and U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). Each of their advantages to assuming full responsibility of the Arctic Region is discussed. This responsibility, however, does not come without costs. A recommendation is made as to which COCOM or COCOMs should assume full responsibility of the region. This discussion begins, however, with a definition of the Arctic Region and the many opportunities and threats in that region."
  • Publication
    Saudi Arabia at a Crossroads? Notes from a Recent Visit; Strategic Insights, v. 3, issue 2 February 2004)
    (Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School, 2004-02-04) Gause, F. Gregory; Center on Contemporary Conflict (CCC); Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.); National Security Affairs (NSA); Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC)
  • Publication
    Civil-Military Relations in Iraq (1921-2006): An Introductory Survey; Strategic Insights, v. 5, issue 5 (May 2006)
    (Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School, 2006-05-01) Kadhim, Abbas; Center on Contemporary Conflict (CCC); Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.); National Security Affairs (NSA); Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC)
  • Publication
    Economic Development During Conflict: The Petraeus-Crocker Congressional Testimonies; Strategic Insights, v. 6, issue 6 (December 2007)
    (Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School, 2007-12) Gunter, Frank R.; Center on Contemporary Conflict (CCC); Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.); Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC)
  • Publication
    Coping with Dual Korean Problems; Strategic Insights, v. 2 issue 1(January 2003)
    (Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School, 2003-01-06) Olsen, Edward A.; Center on Contemporary Conflict (CCC); Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.); National Security Affairs (NSA); Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC)
  • Publication
    NATO's Relations with New Members and Partners Contributions to Peacekeeping, Counterterrorism, and Humanitarian Missions; Strategic Insights, v. 10, issue 3 (Winter 2011), 39-51. Topic: North Atlantic Treaty Organization
    (Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School, 2011-12) Ivanov, Ivan Dinev; Center on Contemporary Conflict (CCC); Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.); National Security Affairs (NSA); Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC)
    This study surveys the involvement of NATO’s Euro-Atlantic partners (EAPs) and new members in various international operations; it argues that the alliance’s success in drawing new participants into international operations is largely determined by three different groups of variables: (1) the prospects for membership; (2) the presence of unresolved disputes with neighboring countries and; (3) the degree of internal political divisions in these transitional societies. This article will examine these three variables. First, it will show that when NATO upgraded its relationship with prospective members and signaled high chances for membership, these nations significantly increased their participation in international operations. Second, it will discuss how the presence of unresolved conflicts could effectively paralyze integration into NATO as was the case of Macedonia and Georgia thus constraining these countries’ involvement in Afghanistan. Finally, it will illustrate how deep political divisions in Ukraine led to a plummeting public approval for membership and subsequent withdrawal of support for NATO-led operations. The three variables together point to the conclusion that the alliance was overall fairly effective in persuading the new members to participate more actively in peacekeeping, counterterrorism, and humanitarian missions. At the same time, it has had a mixed record in engaging its Euro-Atlantic partners (EAP) to become involved in various international efforts. Although NATO’s incentives have facilitated EAP’s contributions to peacekeeping, counterterrorism, and humanitarian missions, these incentives have not always proven sufficient to overcome neighbors’ opposition or domestic resistance to membership.
  • Publication
    Multilateral Cooperation on Nonproliferation
    (2012-12-20) Knopf, Jeffrey W.; Center on Contemporary Conflict (CCC); National Security Affairs
    "Global efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have given rise to international regimes that cover nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, respectively. These regimes each have at their core a global treaty: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC), and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Over time, a number of other initiatives have sprung up alongside these treaties. Yet, while a tremendous amount of cooperative activity takes place beyond the core nonproliferation treaties, there is very little research dedicated to a comparative analysis of these efforts. This project addresses this gap in our knowledge by providing the first systematic comparative analysis of cooperative nonproliferation activities beyond the core treaties. It has two goals: to identify sources of cooperative nonproliferation activities and to assess the effectiveness of such endeavors."
  • Publication
    Democratic Inclusion: A Solution to Militancy in Islamist Movements?; Strategic Insights, v. 3, issue 4 (April 2004)
    (Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School, 2004-04-01) Baylouny, Anne Marie; Center on Contemporary Conflict (CCC); Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.); National Security Affairs (NSA); Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC)
  • Publication
    Occupation of Iraq: Geostrategic and Institutional Challenges; Strategic Insights: v.2, issue 8 (August 2003)
    (Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School, 2003-08) Russell, James A.; Center on Contemporary Conflict (CCC); Naval Postgraduate School (U.S.); National Security Affairs (NSA); Center for Contemporary Conflict (CCC)
    The occupation of Iraq represents a profound strategic challenge for the United States as a nation, its political leadership and its military institutions. Not since decisions made at the outset of the Vietnam War has American prestige and power become so vested in achieving a singularly defined outcome in a distant land far from its shores. From the perspective of using military force to achieve national objectives, one critical difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that today's volunteer military is a totally different institution. By and large, the force is more professional, better trained and better equipped than its predecessor from the 1960s. The battlefield performance of the nation's force in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere leaves no doubt about its overall effectiveness. But unlike the draft-era military of the 1960s, the core of today's military is largely segregated from society at large--its own system within a system that operates according to its own rules and largely lives and works in its own neighborhoods. This separation creates a convenient illusion for the public that use of the force is cost free to the country writ large, and that any pain and suffering is felt solely by those paid to do the job. This document argues that in Iraq, the stakes for the country, its leadership and its military will require a unity of national purpose as the costs will invariably mount for what will have to be a long-term commitment for the entire nation.