American Military Culture : The American Army

Being a professional soldier goes a long way. It means a person take pride in everything they do throughout life. It takes a lot of energy and time to earn this title so upholding its standard is a must. A soldier abides by all his and her codes and creeds. Also, the soldier must follow the army set values. There are seven values and all have a significant importance to our nation; loyalty, duty, respect, selfless-service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. These seven values are all a soldier needs to be professional in the army. Following each of them and executing them will build your character and define you as a soldier and a person.

General Tommy Franks defines well practiced leadership and superior intelligence for combat decision making. His personal values and character define how all Army leaders should lead their men. General Franks practices the Army Values religiously and sets an example for courage and commitment. His successful accomplishments will be addressed in this essay, including how the Warrior Ethos and Army values were displayed by his decisions.

The Values identified, manifested and espoused by the US Army are: Loyalty, Duty Respect, Service &Stewardship, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. These are defined by our US Army as:

The Army’s success in battles becomes a product of its readiness, training, and equipment and of course its size. In the American history, the success of the first battles was a product of combination of all the mentioned factors and especially reduction of the military numbers. Due to the public’s will and pressure for downsizing the force after conflicts and increasing the number right before the following conflicts, the will to repair the damage already done was almost obsolete. In his article, Dunn (2013) mentions, “public reaction to the US first battles served as a catalyst for repairing the state of the Army”. The downsizing routine followed after Cold War period, in order to match the proper rate of forces on the evolving and complicated environment.

Carl Von Clausewitz and Helmuth Moltke the Elder were both practitioners and theorists of the war art in the 19th century. Their military thoughts on war’s character and its dynamics have influenced the later militaries in the conduct of war. Particularly, the Clausewitzian concept of the “culminating point of victory” and the Moltke’s principle of “Auftragstaktik”, or mission type tactics by a decentralized command were implemented and culminated in the battlefield of World War II. Moreover, today, the US Army has adopted both concepts in its latest refined “AirLand Battle” doctrine recognizing their importance in the operational art of modern warfare.

From the earliest recorded history, humans have waged war upon one another. To conquer and expand their empires, military leaders have experimented with hundreds upon hundreds of tactics and theories about how to wage these wars. The United States Army has refined and crafted the science of warfare and the art of leadership, designing six ‘warfighting functions’ that interrelate with each other. These warfighting functions shape the way an United States Army Officer plans for combat. The six warfighting functions are Mission Command, Movement and Maneuver, Intelligence, Fires, Sustainment, and Protection. The use of these functions can be directly related to the success of many victories the United States has seen, not only on the War level, but also for specific battles. In researching the Siege of Yorktown, it is clear to see that these warfighting functions were key to the victory of the siege. This decisive victory legitimized the then freshly founded United States of America.

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.

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

Historian George Herring argues that the idea of “Limited war theory” was an assumption that played a huge role in the escalation of the war. Limited warfare as described by Stephen Peter Rosen is when “They combine political, military, and diplomatic dimension in the most complicated way” (Hollitz 280). It is a type of warfare that is very difficult for anyone to successfully wage and that is why Herring was convinced that it contributed to the escalation. He states that America 's leadership “operated under the mistaken assumption that limited war was more an exercise in crisis management then the application of strategy, and they were thus persuaded that gradual escalation would achieve

Like the French, the U.S. Army’s military organizational structure consists of armies, corps, divisions, brigades, and battalions. The only exception is the regional commands that it uses. Each command level organization consists of a robust staff that assists commanders with developing plans and executing orders. This organizational structure provides an efficient method of commanding and controlling from the lowest to the highest level of commands.

The complex battle ended as an American victory. However, at the cost of “eight U.S military personnel killed and more than 50 wounded” (Kugler, R. L., Baranick, M. J., & Binnendijk, H., 2009, p. 1). Nevertheless, the implications that arose during the difficult stages of the battle aided in comprehending how to structure, train, and supply U.S. forces for future operations. A battle intended be a light three-day battle turned intensely into a seven-day battle, which did not terminate after seventeen days. Within the aftermath, disputes towards the U.S. command structure arose.

Culture of a nation is manifested and influenced by a number of factors. National psyche and traits being the most pronounced ones. Military culture , to a certain extent , is in harmony with the national culture, however, it has its own impulses and dynamics. It incorporates obedience that curtails individual freedom or at times it may be at tangent with the socio-cultural values of a society ; Military culture of British – Indian Army ,as inherited by us is a case in point here. Philosophy of our present military outlets draws strength from history , organisational infrastructure , uniform , traditions social moorings and a host of other factors which , despite numerous changes , is still undergoing the process of evolution.

Military Discipline is a state of order and obedience existing within a command. Self discipline in the military is where soldiers do the 4 rights without being told, even in the absence of the commander. Discipline is created within a unit by instilling a sense of confidence and responsibility in each individual. To strengthen discipline, senior leaders need to give praise to their subordinates, either individually or as a whole, for tasks done well. By doing this, it will accomplish every commanders goal of having a unit that functions well and builds a bond which binds together the team. Everything in life requires some sort of discipline. Whether it is hitting a baseball, learning to sew , playing a musical instrument, making good

As a military spouse of 12 years and someone who has had the privilege to serve the military community through my professional work as a therapist, my notion of community expands beyond the corners of my local, city, state and country. Bound by a common thread of service, sacrifice, shared values and commitment, the military community spans the world. While it may seem challenging to create hope in a community so expansive, as an optimist and one who is dedicated to serving this community, I believe it is possible. The question, “Upon completion of your NCU MFS degree program, what plan(s) would you develop to make a difference in your community that creates hope?” can be viewed in a two-dimensional manner. Creating hope in this community may be accomplished on a smaller scale through effective, military culture informed therapy and also on a larger scale through research and programming. Upon completion of

Giulio Douhet, in his seminal treatise on air power titled The Command of the Air, argued, “A man who wants to make a good instrument must first have a precise understanding of what the instrument is to be used for; and he who intends to build a good instrument of war must first ask himself what the next war will be like.” The United States (US) military establishment has been asking itself this exact question for hundreds of years, in an attempt to be better postured for the future. From the Civil War, through the American Indian Wars, and up until World War II (WWII) the American military’s way of war consisted of fighting traditional, or conventional, wars focused on total annihilation of an enemy. Since that time, there has been a gradual shift from the traditional framework towards one that can properly address non-traditional, or irregular wars. While the US maintains a capability to conduct conventional warfare, the preponderance of operations where the US military has been engaged since WWII have been irregular wars. Therefore, this question articulated by Douhet, as to understanding the character of the next war in order to properly plan, train, and equip, is certainly germane to the current discussion of regular war versus irregular war. In today’s fiscally constrained environment, the questions remains, which will dominate the future and therefore, garner further funding and priority. Based on the current threats and the US role as a superpower, the US