Outplayed: Regaining Strategic Initiative in the Gray Zone, A Report Sponsored by the Army Capabilities Integration Center in Coordination with Joint Staff J-39/Strategic Multi-Layer Assessment Branch

U.S. competitors pursuing meaningful revision or rejection of the current U.S.-led status quo are employing a host of hybrid methods to advance and secure interests contrary to those of the United States. These challengers employ unique combinations of influence, intimidation, coercion, and aggression to incrementally crowd out effective resistance, establish local or regional advantage, and manipulate risk perceptions in their favor. So far, the United States has not come up with a coherent countervailing approach. It is in this “gray zone”—the awkward and uncomfortable space between traditional conceptions of war and peace—where the United States and its defense enterprise face systemic challenges to U.S. position and authority. Gray zone competition and conflict present fundamental challenges to U.S. and partner security and, consequently, should be important pacers for U.S. defense strategy.https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1924/thumbnail.jp

An EMT-Driven Alternative Splicing Program Occurs in Human Breast Cancer and Modulates Cellular Phenotype

Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), a mechanism important for embryonic development, plays a critical role during malignant transformation. While much is known about transcriptional regulation of EMT, alternative splicing of several genes has also been correlated with EMT progression, but the extent of splicing changes and their contributions to the morphological conversion accompanying EMT have not been investigated comprehensively. Using an established cell culture model and RNA–Seq analyses, we determined an alternative splicing signature for EMT. Genes encoding key drivers of EMT–dependent changes in cell phenotype, such as actin cytoskeleton remodeling, regulation of cell–cell junction formation, and regulation of cell migration, were enriched among EMT–associated alternatively splicing events. Our analysis suggested that most EMT–associated alternative splicing events are regulated by one or more members of the RBFOX, MBNL, CELF, hnRNP, or ESRP classes of splicing factors. The EMT alternative splicing signature was confirmed in human breast cancer cell lines, which could be classified into basal and luminal subtypes based exclusively on their EMT–associated splicing pattern. Expression of EMT–associated alternative mRNA transcripts was also observed in primary breast cancer samples, indicating that EMT–dependent splicing changes occur commonly in human tumors. The functional significance of EMT–associated alternative splicing was tested by expression of the epithelial-specific splicing factor ESRP1 or by depletion of RBFOX2 in mesenchymal cells, both of which elicited significant changes in cell morphology and motility towards an epithelial phenotype, suggesting that splicing regulation alone can drive critical aspects of EMT–associated phenotypic changes. The molecular description obtained here may aid in the development of new diagnostic and prognostic markers for analysis of breast cancer progression.National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (R01-HG002439)National Science Foundation (U.S.) (equipment grant)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (Integrative Cancer Biology Program Grant U54-CA112967)David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT (Ludwig Center for Metastasis Research)David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MITMassachusetts Institute of Technology (Croucher Scholarship)Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Ludwig Fund postdoctoral fellowship)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (NIH CA100324)National Institutes of Health (U.S.) (AECC9526-5267

2014-15 Key Strategic Issues List

December 9 - Part II of the Key Strategic Issues List has been updated once again and is available for online viewing: 2014-15 KSIL For several years, the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) has annually published the Key Strategic Issues List (KSIL). The purpose of this document is to make students and other researchers aware of strategic topics that are of special interest to the U.S. Army. Part I of KSIL is entitled Army Priorities for Strategic Analysis (APSA) and is a list of high-priority topics organized to support the Army\u27s five strategic objectives as identified in the 2014 Army Strategic Planning Guidance. Part II includes topics of critical importance to various joint commands, and major commands and other organizations within the Army. Students and researchers are encouraged to get in touch with the topic sponsors listed in the document. Thorough research and solid arguments on these topics are extremely important to the Army in this period of transition and geopolitical uncertainty

2015-16 Key Strategic Issues List

The recently published National Military Strategy emphasizes the unpredictability of the global security environment. According to General Dempsey, “global disorder has significantly increased while some of our comparative military advantage has begun to erode. We now face multiple, simultaneous security challenges…” General Odierno echoes this concern by pointing to the “increased velocity of instability,” and emboldened potential adversaries that have “magnified the risk to U.S. interests around the world.” Responding to this period of geopolitical uncertainty demands thoughtful and careful analysis of a wide array of strategic issues. The Strategic Studies Institutes’ (SSI) annual Key Strategic Issues List (KSIL) addresses this need by providing a list of high-priority topics organized to support the Army\u27s most important strategic objectives, issues that must be addressed to ensure the Army of 2025 and beyond will continue to meet the needs of the nation. Part I of the KSIL lists the Chief of Staff of the Army’s top five topics, all five of which will be addressed as integrative research projects by the US Army War College. Part II, “Priority Research Areas,” is a compilation of critical topics developed by the Army War College and Commands and organizations throughout the Army. Part III consists of the Army Warfighting Challenges. Students and researchers are encouraged to get in touch with the topic sponsors listed in the document, tackle one of these issues, and contribute to the knowledge base needed to support the future direction of the Army

2016-17 Key Strategic Issues List

The United States faces security challenges within a global context of rapid technological change, significant demographic shifts, an uncertain economy, and geostrategic power dynamics of historic proportions. These conditions intensify the level of uncertainty and the pace of change, and raise the potential for significant interstate conflict to levels higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War. We must continue to focus the efforts of the Army\u27s educational institutions on addressing these seemingly insurmountable challenges. The Key Strategic Issues List (KSIL), developed by the U.S. Army War College, in coordination with Headquarters, Department of the Army and major commands throughout the Army, includes issues we must address to ensure the Army of 2025 and beyond will continue to meet the needs of the Nation. As we build a new future to deal with this growing complexity, the Army will require evolutionary change, and this change begins by changing mindsets. This necessary change must be based on rigorous research and the development of ideas that are invaluable to the Army and to the Nation. With your work and research, our Army will be better prepared for the future and the threats posed against our Nation\u27s interests

2013-14 Key Strategic Issues List

*September 24: Part I, Imperative 2 has been updated***November 18: Part II, Commands 1 and 3 have been updated**The KSIL is available for online viewing here: 2013-14 KSIL For several years, the Strategic Studies Institute has annually published the Key Strategic Issues List (KSIL). The overall purpose of this document is to make students and other researchers aware of strategic topics that are of special interest to the U.S. Army. Part I of KSIL is entitled Army Priorities for Strategic Analysis (APSA) and is a list of high-priority topics submitted by Headquarters, Department of the Army. Part II is entitled Command Sponsored Topics and represents the high-priority command-specific topics submitted by MACOMs and ASCCs. This KSIL provides military and civilian researchers worldwide a listing of the Army\u27s most critical national security issues. The KSIL is developed by soliciting input from the appropriate elements of HQDA to develop the Army\u27s high priority topics for strategic analysis. In addition, a similar solicitation is made to the Geographic Combatant Commands and Major Army Commands to identify their high-priority command-specific topics researchers can address. Topics for the APSA are organized to support the four imperatives and related objectives as identified in the 2013 Army Strategic Planning Guidance. Research on these topics will continue to contribute to the transition to the Army of the future. Part II of the KSIL incorporates many critical strategic issues that are both unique to the submitting organizations, and common to a number of commands. The intent of this document is to achieve greater fidelity and harmony between the research needs of the Department of Defense, and the considerable work done by the many different research assets

Force Planning in an Era of Uncertainty: Two MRCs as a Force Sizing Framework

Colonel John F. Troxell first asserts that there is a false dichotomy being drawn between capabilities-based and threat-based force planning. He argues that post-Cold War force planning must be founded on a logical integration of threat- and capabilities-based planning methodologies. He then addresses the issue of the two Major Regional Contingency (MRC) force-sizing paradigm. After reviewing all the arguments made against that paradigm, Colonel Troxell concludes that in a world characterized by uncertainty and regional instability, in which the United States has global security interests and a unique leadership role, the two MRC framework constitutes a logical scheme for organizing U.S. defense planning efforts. That framework is also flexible enough to accommodate adjustments to the U.S. defense establishment, both today and for the immediate future. New approaches to planning scenarios and the operational concept for employing forces offer the potential for such adjustments concerning the ways of the strategic paradigm, while force thinning and modernization are two important categories for adjusting the affordability of the strategic means. At some point, changes in the international security environment will demand significantly different approaches to shaping U.S. forces. But, given the QDR\u27s ringing endorsement of the two MRC construct, that change will be a 21st, rather than a 20th, century undertaking.https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1179/thumbnail.jp