How Militarism Endangers America Analysis

The practical application of the defence power in an age of terrorism is difficult to determine, as it is reliant upon a set of circumstances that can have a plethora of different interpretations from a range of variant perspectives. Unlike some other powers, the defence power is purposive and elastic; it waxes and wanes, and its application “depends upon the facts, and as those facts change so may its actual operation as a power”[1]. Recent developments, such as the Thomas case, have led some theorists to comment that “the elastic of the defence power has become stretched all out of proportion”[2]. In its present interpretation, the defence

A) The title of the book is The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War and the author is Andrew Bacevich. The book was published in New York, New York by the publisher Oxford University Press in the year 2005. It is the first edition and contains 270 pages.

The United States is a militaristic country because of the military budget, the military’s expansion into civilian areas, and military culture. The large and increasing budget of the military is an example of U.S. militarism. According to National Priorities

As we move into the twenty-first century people are confronted with complicated and compromising matters affecting the intricately convoluted global system. New forms of aggression and threat are the faces that greet policy-makers as they spend many hours arranging ways to counter future attacks such as terrorism or massive drug trafficking across national borders. President George W. Bush has issued a mandate in an undertake to regain control over future acts of aggression such as terrorism in the United States; he issued the Executive Order of Homeland Security as that initial step.

The United States from the Cold War and into the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues to face challenges in translating military might into political desires due to its obsession with raising an army, electing politicians and assembling a diplomatic corp that continue to gravitate towards State-to-State engagements that if not rectified could lead to substantial delays in fighting terrorism and non-terrorist adversaries or worse total failure of the United States Military’s ability to properly carry out it’s politicians objectives due to being blindsided.

From the time when the first English colonies were established in North America until now, there has been some form of armed fighting force in place to protect the interests of the United States and its colonial progenitors. During the roughly four centuries in which this fighting force has existed, it has undergone numerous changes of varying degrees of significance. Technological advances have changed the nature of both defensive and offensive warfare, political advances have changed the nature of the relationship between the civilian population and its protectors, and geostrategic shifts have changed the role of the United States military with respect to the rest of the world. The most lasting and meaningful changes have occurred

To paraphrase the quote attributed to Trotsky, “We may not be interested in insurgency but insurgency is interested in us.” The United States faces this dilemma. The question remains how to prepare for this amidst competing interests and threats. The U.S. military should prepare for both conventional and irregular warfare, while prioritizing conventional warfare, recognizing irregular warfare as the most significant short term threat to national interests and conventional warfare the most threatening in the long term. This paper will compare and contrast the considerations for these types of warfare, explain why the U.S. should prioritize conventional operations while preparing for both, and describe the short and long term

So far, terrorism has been a key obstacle to many foreign nations, as they are struggling to prevent terrorist attacks. From the year of 1997 up to the year of 2003, international terrorist attacks have gone from less than 500 to almost 3000. Overall, global terrorism has grown by almost 1200% from 1997 to 2003. (Johnston 1). This massive increase in terrorism reflects on other nations' lack of control of the safety of their nation. These statistics also show that something needs to be done to protect the

Traditionally, the military is used for defense, whether it is to defend the country or the country’s interests. However, sometimes the threat which to defend against is harder to discern than when in open warfare. In the modern age, a large threat to America and countries everywhere is terrorism. From September 11, 2001 to the Florida shootings, terrorism, domestic and abroad, has been a true threat

Militarization of the U.S. -- Mexico Border By Joan J. Jaimes June 22, 2000 "¡Corranle, allí viene la migra!", translated into English, this means "Run, there comes immigration!" This is what illegal immigrants shout everyday when they are about to cross the Rio Grande in search for better lives. Unfortunately, not many get through alive because of the militarization that has developed on the U.S. border with Mexico. Operation Rio Grande continues a process put in motion over a century ago by the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. It tries to erase the reality of a social geographical order that defies neat national divisions and impose a narrow notion of citizenship on people on both sides of the international

The disbanding of the Iraqi army and “debathification” or dismantling of the government in place only served to increase the casualties of American troops and Iraqi civilians as the radical Sunni insurgency expanded. This point of cause and effect, clash of two distinct political and cultural worlds, defined this war for the generation serving, at home and the future generations. The threat of increasing terrorism after the attack of September 11, 2001 was one of the driving force of invasion of Iraq. However, in one analysis the increase of global terrorism today is told to be well contributed by the conflicts that were fueled by the western presence in Iraq and the surrounding

The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.

War can be defined as “an organized and deliberate political act by an established political authority, which must cause 1,000 or more deaths in a twelve-month period, and which requires at least two actors capable of harming each other” (253, Mingst.) This is a broad definition as war can take several different forms, categorized in various ways. Today, the United States is engaged in the War on Terror. In a post-9/11 world, terrorist attacks are even greater sources of fear to citizens, as well as massive threats to national and international security. Over the past few decades, terrorists have been successful in increasing support and achieving political aims. This poses a major security dilemma to victims, such as the United States. It

Amid the Cold War, the danger of atomic weapons put the destiny of millions in the hands of a couple of individuals. Be that as it may, reacting to today 's difficulties, the dangers of terrorism and normal debacles requires the wide engagement of common society. The terrorists ' picked battlegrounds are liable to be possessed by regular folks, not warriors. What 's more, more than the loss of honest lives is in question: an atmosphere of apprehension and a feeling of feebleness despite misfortune are undermining confidence in American goals and powering political demagoguery (van Rensburg, Pearson & Meyer, 2015). Maintaining the United States ' worldwide administration and financial aggressiveness eventually relies on upon reinforcing the

For better or worse, the United States, its allies, and the world are in this conflict together. On an overwhelming scale, wars are fought for the protection of a nation’s sovereignty. The ability to self-govern is dependent on a nation’s ability to protect itself from foreign aggressors. Chertoff points out that by the inauguration of President Barak Obama, in 2009, Al Qaeda went from a national-level terrorist organization, to an insurgency with no state sponsor (Chertoff 2009). This, suggests that there has been an increase in America’s ability to protect its borders from the very threat it is at conflict with. The engagement in conflict, however, benefits more than just the nation which initiates the war. During war, new alliances are formed, and old ones are reinforced. The United States is very effective at ensuring the success of our allies, to guarantee future support. The creation of the Civil Affairs branch, of the United States Army, sought to increase international relations by better preparing other countries to support America’s causes, as well as their own. “When our allies acquire U.S. government equipment, it increasingly enhances our interoperability.” (Helfer, Jones, 2011). One area that seems impaired by the GWOT is international security. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, there have been nearly 100 attempted or