Aligning Objectives For Types Of Strategy

Like any other unified team, how does the United States Army gain leverage against our enemies who look to seize the free world? Well like many teams they have offensive operations, which are to seek opportunities to gain leverage against their foes or even gain a win in the end and then they have defensive operations. Defensive operations are the opposite of offensive operations where instead of trying to take advantage of the enemy the Army’s forces are trying to take a stance and push the enemy back. Thus allowing a chance to defend the territory where the soldiers stand and hopefully allow the soldiers to regain their forces. So like many other military forces we have used these tactics for many of years to defend our great nation, but of course over the years are tactics have had to change in order to adapt to different wars. So in this paper you will learn the most current tactics that our Army

The ways in which the United States has conducted its military operations since becoming an independent nation has largely depended upon the overall political and military objectives of each individual conflict. The United States first three hot wars after the end of World War II display the marked difference in US objectives and the operations used to achieve them better than any other modern wars in which American troops participated.

To follow their goals in wartime, states tap their economic, political, and diplomatic resources and experiences, as well as their military ones. All of these are elements of grand strategy. Strategy means the larger use of military force. Some examples include implementing blockades, wear and tear, exhaustion, and applying immediate pressure at many points.

Strategy is the name of the game, and in Russell Weigley’s The American Way of War, the U.S strategies and policies used throughout history are revisited. Weigley’s focus on the historic strategies of American warfare starts as early as 1775 This book is arranged in different sections depending on the location and strategy, not really sequential in some cases. Weigley went very in depth with his work and made his book a fun read and understandable. He also gave a very detailed amount of historic American military past. To wrap it up, The American Way of War was overall very enjoyable.

Military Strategy is important to understand because it is the way that warfare is carried out. A historian named Kelly Snell writes, “Old world tactics and training were inefficient due to modern weaponry” (Snell). There was pressure for a transition to new military strategy because of the new weapons. The tactics used before the civil war are often referred to as antebellum. Antebellum means “existing before a war” (Antebellum). Advances in weaponry caused for a change of thought on how to approach warfare. “All of the military thinking of the day was influenced by Napoleon” (Snell). This war therefore was set up for groundbreaking improvements in strategy.

According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police they describe the use of force as the "amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling

To follow the initial importance of all of the aspects of use of force, there are different kinds of use of force (General, 1985). The first of several is constructive authority. Constructive authority doesn’t involve actual physical contact, but simply the use of law enforcement officer’s authority to take control over a suspect (General, 1985).Examples of there are verbal commands, gestures, warnings, and unholstering a weapon (General, 1985). Even pointing a firearm at a subject is an element of constructive authority but is to be used only in appropriate situations (General,

The economy has a major influence over the retail industry. Target 's market has a very broad scope. When the economy affects the purchasing ability of its customer base, customers turn to less expensive commodities offered by discount retailers.

In order to develop effective solutions for complex military problems, the Joint Community within the US Military adopted the methodology of Operational Design in Joint Doctrine. This methodology addresses the concept of complex, ill-structured or “wicked” problems. In fact, Lessons Learned as a result of operations conducted over the last 15 years played an instrumental role in the continued development of this doctrine. Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) illustrates a perfect case study for evaluation utilizing this methodology. Therefore, the intent of this paper is to evaluate US Military campaign planning for OIF by using operational design as the framework for this analysis. First, this paper looks at how planners and commanders interpreted pre-invasion civilian policy guidance, their understanding of the current operational environment, and how these commanders defined the problem. Next, it identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the initial approach. After discussing this initial approach, this paper examines how commanders assessed the campaign and refined the approach – to include how the reframing occurred. Lastly, it provides examples of how these lessons learned shaped current joint planning policy and doctrine.

b. Under Air Land Battle doctrine (1982-1993),the operational planning must orient on decisive objectives. It must stress flexibility, opportunities to fight on favorable terms on enemy vulnerabilities, joint operations, and aggressive exploitation of tactical gains to achieve operational gains.

Within days of Iraqi forces invading Kuwait in 1990, President Bush publicly backed the United Nations’ (UN) stance on the incursion with four national strategic objectives and determined that, ‘if invited, US forces would be deployed to deter further Iraqi attacks, defend Saudi Arabia and enforce UN resolutions.’ From the national strategic objectives, the military end-state is deduced. The military end-state is a conceptual element of operational design which describes the conditions that forces must achieve to attain strategic objectives/ hand over main effort responsibilities. The military end-state does not necessarily indicate the end of a military activities to attain national objectives. While one specific national objective would not

In (§1) I will give a brief historical account of coercion, and outline why it is seen as a issue worth conceptualising. I will then present an account of coercion closely drawn from Robert Nozick that holds the issuing of a conditional threat (CT) essential to coercion.

Generally, no one denies the preponderance of denial strategy over punishment strategy. But why do we keep discussing punishment strategies? The answer is all about the costs of enforcement. In fact, cost-benefit analysis is an important part of studies on coercion. From the perspective of the adversary, if resistance costs (comprising the costs of preventing the threat and the pain imposed by coercer’s sanctions) are perceived as more than the compliance costs, it is more possible for the adversary to comply. But if choosing to resist and failing, after the denial strategy of the coercer achieves, the target faces both resistance and compliance costs together. The punishment strategy, however, implies that the target still retains options and chances not to bear compliance costs. This is why denial strategy is more effective than punishment.

To attain competitive gain, organisations can differentiate their merchandise and services from their competitors they can also choose to lower their costs in order to compete with other contenders. By aiming their produces to a wide-ranging target, they are essentially covering most of the marketplace or if they choose, they can decide to concentrate on a narrower target within the market (Lynch 2003). While doing so may reduce their market range it essentially reduces their other competitors. Porter stated that there are three generic strategies that an organisation can follow to achieve competitive gain over other organisations. These are:

As military members we are educated to think very linearly about strategy. For many years we have been trained to have a strategic thought process based on the use of a methodology that espouses three major steps: Ends (Objectives), Ways (Strategic Concepts), and Means (Resources). (Barber 1997)