Critical Reasoning And Battle Analysis

The historical battle of Harpers Ferry was a pivotal point during the Civil War. While the battle was a clear victory on the Confederate front, Union forces could have changed the outcome with little efforts. This paper analyzes the battle with the intent of identifying how the application, utilization, or availability of intelligence assets could have resulted in an alternate outcome. With the proper use of All Source Intelligence analysis on the Union front, the Battle of Harpers Ferry would have played out completely different. While the results of this battle may not have changed the outcome of the Civil War, it would have affected the timeline of follow-on battles. The structure of this paper is simple, we cover the basics of the battle and follow up with relevant facts on how proper use of terrain analysis and troop capabilities affects the outcome of the battle.

The battle of Ap Bac was a small battle engaged between the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and the insurgents, or the People Liberation Armed Forces (Viet Cong AKA VC) with the assistance of American’s weapons and advice during the Vietnam War. It took place on 2 January, 1963, near a small village named Ap Bac which is located approximately 65 km southwest of Saigon in the Mekong Delta. (Starry, 2002). As a senior leader, it is important that we have to be technically and tactically proficient. In order to be proficient, we not only need to be trained, but also we have to know how to gain experience from past battles in history using battle assessment, and critical thinking process to study the battle. That way, we know what needs to be improved, how to sustain it, and how would we execute it better next time. Therefore, studying the history of the battle of Ap Bac will enhance the knowledge of how the commanders used the most effective and efficient method for applying decisive action on the battle field. It would be a successful outcome for the South Vietnamese ARVN, and Kennedy’s administration would have gained more trust from American people for the presence of American troops in Vietnam, if the American advisers and the ARVN’s commanders would have integrated intelligence preparation of the battlefield (ITP) throughout the operations process to identify the gaps of intelligence between human intelligence (HUMINT),

The Battle of Big Hole in 1877 demonstrated well the dynamics of communication, strategy, and risk assessment in every stage of the battle, from the gathering of information to the aftermath of the slaughter. The materials of gathering intelligence, for example, can literally make or break the matter of mission completion. In this case, communication between commanders aided in U.S. Army in cutting off the path to Canada for the fleeing Nez Perce Native Americans.

The Battle at Midway was a critical turning point of the war in the Pacific during World War II. Attribution to American success is in direct relation to their ability to conduct signal collection and crypto-analysis leading to the battle. The elimination of this capability from consideration during the preparation for this battle will drastically influence the outcome. Through critical reasoning and battle analysis, this paper will determine the level of effect of the capability. The analysis will also seek to understand the change in outcome as a result of this change to history. The product of this analysis will be a thorough understanding of the importance of intelligence capability to United States success during World War II.

Major General Burnside’s failure at the Battle of Fredericksburg could initially be attributed to the army not receiving the pontoon bridges in time to cross the river and sustain the army’s momentum. However, MG Burnside’s bigger issue can be linked back to his lack of mission planning. The issue of not receiving the pontoon bridges relates directly to the lack of Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB). During IPB, the battlefield environment is defined, battlefield effects are described, the threat is evaluated, and threat courses of action are determined (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1994). If MG Burnside had taken the time to conduct proper terrain analysis of the Rappahannock River

The United States (U.S) Intelligence community has come a long way since the revolutionary war. After winning independence from England, the U.S would not invest much into intelligence or foreign policy until the 20th century. Foreign policy was simply not a priority for our young nation, having an ocean on eastern and Western boarders of the country severely limited potential threats. President Franklin D. Roosevelt would be the first president since Washington to understand the importance of intelligence and lay the groundwork for what we now consider national intelligence. Unfortunately, it has taken two catastrophic failures in intelligence for the U.S to realize the need for good intelligence and take steps to improve itself. The

A 1998 abstract review for military training by Paul J. Jaeger reflects to the importance of “the application of operational intelligence as a function of operational art” and how the “Planning and execution for the Midway operation required fusion of strategic operational and tactical intelligence by the commanders involved; most notably Admiral Chester Nimitz” (Jaeger, pg 22). The strategy employed was to act immediately and tactically to the intelligence the commanders received from the code breakers. David J. Jerabek also “analyzes Admiral Nimitz strategic leader competencies and evaluates his contributions in achieving a total victory in the Pacific for the Allied powers” (Jerabek)

If I was in command on a steel building fire in my area and the crews inside advised me that it was getting to hot in there, even with crews outside trying to cool the steel. A steel building holds more heat than wood frame construction. Wood burns through faster than steel to collapse a building. Temperature above 1,000 degrees F, the steel tends to soften and fail in a fire. In recent test by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E-119 Fireproofing steel columns, the columns fails when a temperature of 1,200 degrees F is exceeded at one point or 1,000 degrees F is exceeded on the average in the column. That’s why I would pull all my firefighters out and

On December 7th, 1941 Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States by attacking the pacific fleet harbored at Pearl Harbor. There was great intelligence planning that went into the attack plans by Japan, new techniques emerged, successes and failures by both sides that contributed to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Intelligence failures contributed largely to the outcome, such as the attack planes on radar dismissed as B-17s that were coming from the mainland, or the mini sub that was sank just outside the harbor that failed to raise the alarm. These few examples if avoided would have saved thousands of lives by providing warning to the fleet at Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor could have played out very differently, this paper will discuss that possibility and provide and alternate future to this horrific battle.

Arguably, the numerous political and militant events mean that it is possible to state that the Korean War was infact a success for the USA, with events such as the Inchon Landings, and the pushing back of the opposing forces to the 38th Parallel. However, it can be equally argued that it was a Military failure, with the most obvious example being the retreat following the Dragon Attacks. Similarly, the complex political nature of this war also means that success is debatable, for example, the anti – communist paranoia and the decision to introduce General McArthur.

Operation Chromite was the most successful operation carried out by the U.S. in Korea. The North Korean forces had pushed all of the UN forces down to Pusan, at the end of the peninsula. General MacArthur had the idea to invade at Inchon, a port on the Northwestern part of the Korean peninsula. Despite negative factors, such as the thirty-foot tide change at Inchon that would delay an invasion, it was eventually chosen as the location. Weeks before the actual invasion, Airforce and Navy began monitoring and bombing Inchon, and a special task force, which consisted of the 1st and 5th Marine Divisions and the 7th Infantry Division, was assembled for the amphibious assault. General Edward Almond was placed in charge of this force. For the invasion

The most successful military maneuver by the United Nations during the Korean war was the surprise attack near the city of Inchon. As stated in Call to Freedom by Sterling Stuckey and Linda Salvucci, “The situation seemed hopeless at times. The MacArthur and other military leaders came up with a daring plan…” This daring plan during this fierce fight ended up quickly pushed the army out of South Korea. Without this maneuver they would’ve not been able to continue to move north to take over North Korea’s capital, Pyongyang. The surprise attack near Inchon was the most victorious UN military maneuver during the Korean War.

Inchon is located in the Northwestern corner of modern South Korea and was a key location for the North Korean forces. Inchon, located just 25 miles west of the nation’s capital, Seoul, was a key location for North Korean resupplies . Friendly intelligence and air reconnaissance observed that there were two major supply lines that were along the two major highways coming from both the northeast and northwest. It was through these two major supply lines that North Korean forces were able to then disseminate supplies throughout the South Korean peninsula and ultimately down to the Pusan area in the southeast corner. Because Inchon

I can see how you relate critical thinking to a game of chess. You have to be able to look at all of your options when planing your moves and analyze what the result of your move will be. At times you plan two or three moves in advance and anticipate what your opponent will do. You have to react to the opponent's move because they don't always do what you anticipate, Very creative anology!

I found the article to be very informative and fascinating in its exploration of human warfare. Archeological evidence suggests that human warfare was nonexistent prior to 10,000 ago. Culturally, we are all taught that humans are violent and that they have always been warring since their existence. The article brings the evidence that is not so. Humans started warfare after their socio-economic systems became more complex and they were shortages for resources. It’s counter-intuitive but it turns out that humans started warfare after the introduction of agriculture in societies. Wealthier the societies got, more they fought instead of less. I think it is a riveting example of human psychology. When we have more resources to go around and more