Civil Military Relation

The military has been instrumental in the protection and development of U.S interests around the world. From the Revolutionary War, which established the United States as a nation, through the World Wars, which set up the U.S as one of the world super powers, to its current war on terror, the military has helped and protected U.S. interests around the world. During all these wars American soldiers have proudly served their country. Because of these wars America is famous throughout the world for military power and its protection of freedom in the world. Today the U.S is an international symbol of wealth and power; it has the largest Gross Domestic Product in the world as well as the strongest military. Yet even America falls prey to a

The function of the military forces for the United States has had no choice but to evolve as wars wax and wane. As the rise of militant terrorist groups became a threat to the United States and its allies, the armed forces of the United States were deployed by the President to countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. Instability in these countries threatened bordering allies, and after September 11, 2001, the threat was brought to U.S. soil. Each president from Clinton to Obama has had to shape the policy of how the armed forces fit into civil-military policies abroad and overseas. In a war time environment, such as Iraq, the purpose of how the military should be deployed is easier to clearly state. But in times when there is no imminent threat, it is much more difficult to transition

How to ensure that the "military-industrial complex" does not endanger American liberties and the democratic process. This can be done by the statesman, according to Eisenhower, it is their job "to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old,, within the principles of our democratic

However, this external trust has been fraying from the edges for many years – clear and realistic political strategy has been lacking from civilian leaders, a well-meaning yet disengaged public, and an insular military class that fails to organically adapt to emerging technologies. A clear and realistic political strategy determined by civilian leaders addresses the first leg of the strategic triad – government. It is said success begins at the top, with a cohesive vision and unified guidance. One doesn’t have to look further than the 2003 invasion of Iraq - then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed it would require no more than 150,000 troops to secure Iraq, despite the insistence of then Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki that it would take 300,000 troops, a number derived from his experience in Bosnia. (Mills, 2013) However, this detail overshadows the deeper implication – that civilian leaders were not planning for stability operations, or had a plan in place after the conventional phase of the war. The lack of guidance and vision from the nation’s strategic leaders make it extremely difficult, if not impossible for the military to effectively prosecute

The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the United States

The Army completed two vitally important publications in 2014. The first was the much-anticipated U.S. Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World 2020-2040. This work, with a foreword from the Chief of Staff of the Army, “provides the intellectual foundation and framework for learning and for applying what we learn to future force development under Force 2025 and Beyond.” The TRADOC Commanding General’s foreword emphasizes that the Army Operating Concept’s “vision of the future must drive change to ensure that Army forces and prepared to prevent conflict, shape the security environment, and win wars.” The Army Operating Concept includes an acknowledgment of the “continuities in the nature of war as well as an appreciation for changes in the character of armed conflict” and references Thucydides and Clausewitz. A number of themes emerge from the Army Operating Concept’s vision of the future. These include complexity, ambiguity, multiplicity, adaptation,

In 1958, as the United States Government sought to reorganize its defense establishment, President Dwight D. Eisenhower argued that “separate ground, sea and air warfare is gone forever. If ever again we should be involved in war, we will fight in all elements, with all services, as one single concentrated effort.” Eisenhower based his assessment on his experiences as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II, but his insight has had a tremendous influence on the way that the armed services fight. Today the armed services operate as a joint force, yet each service provides important capabilities, some of which are unique to that service alone. Through law, Congress has assigned certain roles to each service. These are the “broad

Throughout the course of a relatively short history, military intervention by the United States (US) in foreign conflicts has been a calculated and intricate process. Unlike despotic nations or one party regimes whose leaders are often unelected and whose authoritarian style rulers face little political fallout from foreign military interventions, elected officials in the US are faced with prescribed rules and regulations which hold government officials liable in their desire to engage in a foreign military conflict. Even if the legal threshold to send the US military to a foreign conflict is met, elected officials in the US are still insistently consumed with how the decision is conveyed and received by the American population. For these

Another problem for the U.S. Army is that information operations, psychological operations, public affairs and civil affairs, defense support to public diplomacy (DSPD), military diplomacy, and visual information all fall under different command structures which are scattered throughout the U.S. Army’s formation. The fact that these functional areas are under different commands allows each element to create its own theme and messages. Paul (2011) claims that if every representative of the government says whatever they feel like saying, each becomes a potential loose cannon on the ship of communication. But, regardless of decentralization, full integration is possible. Along with the urgency to execute strategic communication, the U.S. Army is moving toward more conducive command structure for complex environments. The military is adapting a “mission command” philosophy. Mission command relies on the human ability to take action in a timely manner based on analysis of the environment and what is necessary for the achievement of an assigned task or goal. For effective mission command to

Just as the the Navy is subject to the provisions of Title 10, under the Secretary of the Navy, the Army under the Secretary of the Army is responsible for the functions prescribed in detail in DODD 5100.01; Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major Components. This document designates Army as the Nation’s principal land force to conduct military engagement and security cooperation; deter aggression and violence, and compel enemy behavioral change or compliance. The Army will do this by contributing forces through a rotational, cyclical readiness model that provides a predictable and sustainable supply of modular forces to the Combatant Commands, and has forces designated to provide a surge capacity for unexpected contingencies.

It is in this type of environment that the USAASC operates, demanding it imperative that broad consensus is reached through an adaptable understanding of the unique Mission(s) of the organization and a flexible approach (either militaristic, civilianized or a hybrid) to determine what is best at any given time and effort. Military personal tend to want to sprint and civilians are marathoners. It was once said by General Carter Ham, “If you go quickly, you go alone, if you go slowly, we go together.” There is also a decision that Military Leaders must consider. Do they want Compliance or Commitment? Demanding Compliance tends to get things done (not all the time) but limits initiative and Commitment takes longer and is harder, yet tends

The United states military is the force that protects dour country. They are the ones that dress in camouflage and protect the freedoms we hold dear. For the military to be successful at protecting the United states of America, which is their main job; they must be able to use land, sky and water. This is because attacks can come from anywhere. Honestly every country has a military, in effect a large amount of men and women trained to protect that nation. Although this paper is not about every other country’s military, it is about the three biggest branches of the U.S. Military. It is about the Army, Navy and the air force and how each is essential in protecting our civil liberties.

The circumstances under which it is or is not legitimate to use military force against another group or country? When should the United States intervene in Global conflicts? The use of military force is one of the most seriously debated topics in all generations. Many top generals and commanders have a different way on how they use military force and how they advise the President of the United States to take action. Every four years during a presidential debate, it is brought up by the mediator on how to deal with foreign politics and the use of the military. When you are a part of one of the world’s most powerful military forces can you turn your head and do nothing, while other nations suffer? America doesn’t go into war blind there are decisions,

As contemporary war evolves, there are many critical factors military leaders need to be aware

Based on the “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community”, the U.S. Military should prioritize and train for the conduct of counterterrorism, unconventional warfare, foreign internal defense, counterinsurgency, stability operations, civil military operations, and law enforcement activities. Consequently, our nation must take a whole of government approach in resolving these irregular threats working with the international community and the host nation. To enable these partnerships in this whole of government approach requires military proficiency in civil military operations and law enforcement activities. Civil military operations and law enforcement activities are not identified within the five types of Irregular Warfare