Peace in our time, which is what Neville Chamberlain called for in a 1938 speech, remains as elusive today as it did after World War I. While the Army has been getting smaller as large-scale combat operations ended in Iraq and Afghanistan, the world is not close to peace at all.Defense Secretary Ashton Carter made this clear in a message to the entire Defense Department on the day he was sworn into office. “We confront a turbulent and dangerous world: continuing turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa, and the malignant and savage terrorism emanating from it; an ongoing conflict in Afghanistan; a reversion to archaic security thinking in parts of Europe; tensions in the Asia-Pacific; the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and intensifying threats in cyberspace,” Carter said.The world, as Carter said, is filled with unrest and aggression, with immediate and future strategic risks and with continuous threats against the U.S., its citizens and allies. That’s why the Army is focused on new doctrine, unit structure and training to provide an agile, responsive global force.The Association of the U.S. Army is hosting a Global Force Symposium and Exposition in Huntsville, Ala., beginning March 31 to look at some of the issues involved in updating the Army’s operating concept and in equipping and training the force now and in the future.Although the future is always cloudy, the National Security Strategy released by the White House in February makes clear that a strong military will be needed. “A strong military is the bedrock of our national security,” the document says. “To maintain our military edge and readiness, we will continue to insist on reforms and necessary investment in our military forces and their families.“Our military is postured globally to protect our citizens and interests, preserve regional stability, render humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and build the capacity of our partners to join with us in meeting security challenges,” the security strategy says.There is a lot to do. “Although our military will be smaller, it must remain dominant in every domain,” the strategy says. “We will protect our investment in foundational capabilities like the nuclear deterrent, and we will grow our investment in crucial capabilities like cyber; space; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.” Those are not solely Army capabilities, but the Army has a piece of each one.The U.S. is not a nation anxious for war, but it needs to be prepared to win if it goes to war. “The use of force should not be our first choice, but it will sometimes be the necessary choice,” the strategy says. “The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our enduring interests demand it: when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake; and when the security of our allies is in danger.”There are other times when U.S. interests are not directly threatened, when the threshold is higher for the use of military force, the strategy says.Army Lt. Gen. William C. Mayville Jr., director for operations on the Joint Staff, told the House Armed Services Committee in February he is concerned that potential adversaries have been studying the U.S. military. “I know we have the best military in the world, and I am confident that we can meet all of the requirements our nation gives us today. I am, however, concerned about the future,” he said at a hearing focusing on worldwide threats. “It is important to remember that every one of our adversaries studies us. So as we evolve and prepare, they take close lessons on our last fight, and they look for indications of how we will fight tomorrow,” Mayville said. “One of the challenges is we always come up against adversaries that are well-prepared against us.”The world has many dangers, Mayville said. “We are seeing the emergence of not just violent extreme organizations, but violent extreme organizations within the much broader transregional framework. We’re seeing global economic shifts. We’re seeing shifts in regional power balances. We’re seeing rising powers, the return of some geopolitical rivalries. There are clearly some new relationships that we need to develop. And the management of current client states is challenging,” he said.Mayville worries some looming threats are easily overlooked. “I am concerned that there are conflicts that, on the surface, don’t appear to affect us and that we somehow can ignore them. But if you ask me, and that is not true … there are some things that only we can do, and we are a global leader.”Mayville also said there are inherent problems with a smaller force. “I think a smaller force puts a greater demand on the force you have,” he said. “It also puts a demand on their families. It will force us to have a greater reliance on our allies and partners, and it will cause us to make tough decisions in terms of operational priorities.”Cutting the Army has other risks, Mayville said. “One of the things that we’ve seen less of is less forward station of the forces,” he told the committee. “I think with a reduced number, the challenge we’ll face is how much of the force do you want forward shaping and preventing, and how much of the force do you want maintaining the high levels of readiness to respond to contingencies? The challenge will be the balance and the sense of operational priorities.”Michèle Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense for policy and member of the National Defense Panel that analyzed the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, warned the Senate Armed Services Committee it will take an adequate budget, an immediate emphasis on improving readiness and a “smart and determined investment strategy” for the U.S. to maintain its military edge. “The international security environment is more complex and volatile, and we’ve seen, I would emphasize, it’s going to get more challenging in the future,” she said.Henry Kissinger, President Richard Nixon’s secretary of state, said global uncertainty is the result of challenges to international order, including the collapse of authority and the spread of violence. “The United States has not faced a more diverse and complex array of crises since the end of the Second World War,” Kissinger said in January.“American military power has and will continue to play an eventful role in upholding a favorable international balance, restraining, destabilizing rivalries and providing a field for economic growth and international trade to follow,” Kissinger said. “The sense of basic security that a strong and consistent American political presence provides has made possible many of the great strides of the post-World War II era. It is no less important now.”Carter said during his February confirmation hearing that there seems no end to the dangers in the world, which include “continuing turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa and the malignant and savage terrorism emanating from it; an ongoing war in Afghanistan; the reversion to old-style security thinking in parts of Europe; the longstanding tensions from the past and the rapid changes in Asia and the continuing need for the stabilizing role of the United States in that region, which are so important to the future; the continuing imperative to counter the spread or use of weapons of mass destruction; and new dangers in new domains like cyber.”