Divisive debates over the future force structures of the U.S. Armed Forces have continued despite the Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions for the Armed Forces (May 1995) and the more recent reports of the Quadrennial Defense Review (May 1997) and the National Defense Panel (December 1997). Part of the reason for the bitter nature of these debates is due to parochial partisanship. Part is due to a lack of clear understanding of the individual components of military power or of their collective interrelationships. This latter conclusion may be particularly true for land power. Responsibility for this misunderstanding does not always fall at the feet of outside observers. No official definition or general articulation of land power currently exists. And, because land power is self-evident to most who wear Army or Marine Corps green, they see little need to explain land power to a broader audience. But, if national leaders are to have a fuller under- standing of land power, its central role in the growing interdependence of military power, or the policy options that land power's versatility brings to security policy planning and execution, then such explanations are imperative. To help fill this conceptual gap, the author offers a definition of land power to meet the demands of the 21st century. While defining land power is his primary purpose, he also places land power within the overarching context of total military power. Additionally, he highlights the growing interdependence among the components of national power.

Parochial partisanship and a lack of clear understanding of the individual components of military power or of their collective interrelationships have spawned debates over the future force structures of the U.S. Armed Forces. No official definition or general articulation of land power currently exists, but if national leaders are to have a fuller understanding of land power, its central role in the growing interdependence of military power, or the policy options that land power's versatility brings to security policy planning and execution, such explanations are imperative. Therefore, the author offers a definition of land power to meet the demands of the 21st century. He also places land power within the overarching context of total military power and highlights the growing interdependence among the components of national power, the strategic and operational versatility it offers policymakers, and its interrelationships with air and sea power.

Divisive debates over the future force structures of the U.S. Armed Forces have continued despite the Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions for the Armed Forces (May 1995) and the more recent reports of the Quadrennial Defense Review (May 1997) and the National Defense Panel (December 1997). Part of the reason for the bitter nature of these debates is due to parochial partisanship. Part is due to a lack of clear understanding of the individual components of military power or of their collective interrelationships. This latter conclusion may be particularly true for land power. Responsibility for this misunderstanding does not always fall at the feet of outside observers. No official definition or general articulation of land power currently exists. And, because land power is self-evident to most who wear Army or Marine Corps green, they see little need to explain land power to a broader audience. But, if national leaders are to have a fuller understanding of land power, its central role in the growing interdependence of military power, or the policy options that land power's versatility brings to security policy planning and execution, then such explanations are imperative. To help fill this conceptual gap, Dr. William T. Johnsen offers a definition of land power to meet the demands of the 21st century. While defining land power is his primary purpose, he also places land power within the overarching context of total military power. Additionally, he highlights the growing interdependence among the components of national power. In placing land power is such a context, Dr. Johnsen seeks to spark an enlarged debate about land power, the strategic and operational versatility it offers policymakers, and its interrelationships with air and sea power. To this end, the Strategic Studies Institute offers this contribution to the ongoing debate.

Much has happened in the 16 years since this author penned a monograph entitled Redefining Land Power for the 21st Century. The United States suffered the tragedies of September 11, 2001, the first attack of a wave of large-scale extremist terrorist activities that have scourged the globe from London to Bali to Madrid to Mumbai to Nairobi and beyond. The invasion and subsequent counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and the ebbing war in Afghanistan have significantly engaged U.S. military power, especially Landpower, for over a decade. The ongoing volatility of the international security environment continues to generate crises that may embroil U.S. national interests: an increasingly erratic North Korea that may be on the verge of implosion, confrontation with Iran over its nuclear policies, the turbulence of the Arab Spring and its consequences, growing unrest in broad swaths of Africa, and multiple crises in the Middle East, to name but a few.

Landpower, defined here as "the ability--by threat, force, or oc­cupation--to exploit control over land, resources, and people," offers policymakers significant util­ity in peace, crisis, or war. This book provides better understanding of Landpower essential if national leaders are to have a full range of policy options for protecting and promoting the nation's interests in the face of shifting geostrategic conditions.

"This Landpower Essay articulates, from a national perspective, why Strategic Land Power is important, defines it in a broad strategic context, offers a way to gauge its relative strength and provides a brief discussion regarding what constitutes adequate SLP for a nation. According to the author, defining SLP itself is fairly straightforward; defining adequate SLP for any nation is not. The United States and many other nations are in the process of making difficult decisions regarding expenditures. They will determine by analysis or by indifference what they require in terms of SLP, how this capability will be applied and to what extent it will be resourced"--Publisher's web site.