Huntington's Argumentative Analysis

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

The Constitution of the United States divide powers between both Congress and President in a way to prevent tyranny. The legislative and executive branches have major roles in America’s form of government. Each have significant roles but would overlay within each other especially when it comes to foreign policy. In the process of foreign policy, both sides tend to collide whether it may be Congress against the executive branch or vice versa. It becomes something contradictory in which Political Scientist Edwin Corwin calls it an “invitation to struggle”. This paper looks to examine the “struggle” in detail, set out the roles and responsibilities of Congress and the President in foreign policy as stated by the Constitution and then explain

The armed forces are viewed as a more socially accepted organization due to its incorporation in the mass media. However, some shift one how the military operated occurred when the United States became involved in the Vietnam War. The author accurately illustrates how politics have continuously impacted all branches of America’s military. Maddow shares insights and standpoints of how war coincides with the views of politicians, government officials, and how we have drifted away from the main

In his article, McCloskey referred to proofs as arguments that “definitively establish the case for God,” and since they fail, according to his analysis, theists should abandon these proofs. However, there seems to be a misunderstanding concerning the word “proof”. While clarifying how to approach of God’s existence, Professor Foreman revealed that people should not try to use the word “proof” in regards to God’s existence since it implies certainty and derives from mathematics (i.e., where a mathematician attempts to prove a concept mathematically), and, thus, Foreman believes that these arguments are not there to prove God. Although people should not use arguments to prove God’s existence, there is still value in them: they suggest that

After the Civil War and by the mid-20th century, the United States had become the governing force in international relations. Some have argues that the United States’ military functions as the world’s “police.” This essay covers international events from the past five years that can be tracked back to a foreign policy created after the Civil War and the manner in which this shift occurred and the consequences the United States faces as a result of its status as policemen of the world. Also, the action against Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and the attempt to stop Expansion of Soviet Expansion during the Cold War are all discussed in this essay.

After reading the article I have came to the conclusion that Huntington makes some rather stellar points about his thoughts. I would say that I agree with most of them, his thoughts on the clash the most. I do believe that cultural differences can be stronger than that of political ones. I believe people are more prone to fight over things they are passionate about like religion or their cultural history. When it comes down to it, there culture defines who they are. If we make laws or have a stronger government that can solve some political issues. When it comes down to our roots of culture and what we believer it is not the easiest thing to sit down and talk about it. We are who we are because we believe what we believe, trying to change someone’s

Some arguments cite the post-1991 decrease in military spending and increase in operations as the causal factor for stress on the DoD. This represents the inability of the United States to support its previous models for overseas military interventions and expeditionary campaigns. Thus, forcing the DoD to contract more work to the private sector. Others assert that the increased variety and specificity of overseas operations lead the DoD to analyze its procedures for deploying both civilian and military personnel. Although the DoD sought to continue intervening abroad, its ability to adequately hire and hold large amounts of personnel diminished. The specificity of overseas operations advanced to a point where the DoD favored outsourcing its work to the private sector as the private sector offered a wider range of “a la carte” capabilities. A third argument acknowledges the U.S.’s politicians and increased sensitivity to the human and financial costs of war as the reason for the increased use of PMCs. As the military community shrunk, its connection to the greater population of the United States became weaker and support for overseas interventions became less important or meaningful to voters. PMCs offered a viable option for the DoD as they can be deployed in a more discrete fashion and politicians can distance themselves from unpopular military related policies and

The evolution of the United States military and the notion of warfare can be traced back to the 1600s in Early America. The military has developed from a small militia to the world’s greatest within a few hundred years. In order to understand the changes in warfare, history, and the American way of war, the beginning must be understood. The Colonial period is one of the best examples because it was the period in which organized militias were constructed as a primary means of defense. The resulting colonial militia laws required every able-bodied male citizen, usually between the ages of 16 and 45, to participate and were responsible for equipping themselves with weapons. These units were utilized for small military operations which included seizing land, defending themselves, and being prepared for emergency service. Militia units became the backbone of the American

According to Mills, in modern society, the centralization of power and the men who head government, corporations, the armed forces and the unions are closely linked. The means of power at the disposal of centralized decision makers have greatly increased. The Power Elite is made up of political, economic and military leaders. Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex” gives a clear image of the entwinement of these bases of power. Mills points out that over time a coalition was formed among the top positions in the military, government, and industry. These positions are occupied by people whose jobs are interchangeable because they are all geared toward the same goal: the acquisition and maintenance of power. Mills asserts that leaders of the

Gardner while speaking for creating mind is expressing that this type of thinking is no longer considered as exceptional, but instead essential. Creating thinking is one aspect that puts us one step ahead of the routine programmed machines. Gardner quotes that in the past those (Galileo) who have been creative were not admired as they were considered out of routine. But in today’s world as well in the future, creative thinking will be considered as a valuable asset and included as a routinize norm.

@Chris, @Erik and @Tomas – From what I hear you all, the military seems to work in a multi-dimensional configuration. In addition to a committed leadership, clearly set objective and roles, defined operating system, it seems to be in a continuous state of learning and adaptation both individually and as a group. Even though combat is the primary military purpose, adaptation as in real world seems to drive the essential roles of leadership and organizational culture.

Throughout history the nature of warfare has remained the same, it is “a violent clash of interests between or among organized groups characterized by the use of military force,” however, the character of war is constantly changing. The means by which wars are fought are no longer limited to easily identifiable conventional forces, nor do non-traditional actors abide by the same set of international standards and rules of law. The United States can no longer expect to face a purely conventional threat. As a result, the U.S. military must be prepared to conduct both regular and irregular warfare successfully, although irregular warfare is more challenging and poses a greater threat to U.S. strategic objectives.

America has claimed the responsibility of not only keeping peace in the world but also spreading democracy throughput the world through the “Empire of Liberty” policy. Consequently, this has seen the United States’ military take a responsibility of safeguarding human rights whenever there is anarchy in many parts of the world. This essay seeks to establish an argument that the United States’ military functions as the world “police”. This essay seeks to establish that the United States military perceives itself as responsible for maintaining order in the world

In the military, leaders control behavior by giving orders, not invitations. This "do what I say, not what I do" culture, binds each branch to a leadership style based on a position of power which directs subordinate behavior by removing their freedoms, choices and flexibility; and tells them exactly what, when, where, and how to act (Hedlund, 2009). This archaic mindset, contradicts the assumptions credited for the notable successes of the Human Relations framework. The military's authoritarian approach to leadership exploits service members and degrades the foundation of trust.

Military power functions as an integral part of the national security process and takes up important roles like aggrandizement and defense. Robert Art, in his 1980 article enumerates four core functions of the military, to include: defense, deterrence, compulsion, and posturing. As a defensive object of national security, the military’s first duty is to protect the nation against all enemies of the nation by warding off attacks or minimizing the damage caused by the attack. As a tool for deterrence, the military uses its might to prevent an enemy from acting out on a dangerous plan by threatening unacceptable punishment for action. To do this, the state has to assume that the enemy is rational and understands that it would cost the enemy more to be punished for an action than it would if the enemy does not act at all. In compulsion, the military undertakes the role of forcing an adversary to either stop an action that’s already in motion or pressure the adversary to act. The goal here is to force the enemy to realize that a continuation –or lack of one will cost more than any gains expected. The military undertakes a swaggering role in national defense to show adversaries the extent of its power and to give the adversary a yardstick, with which to measure if undertaking a certain action would be effective or not. A political leader is expected to listen to the advice of his military commander since this commander has more experience, and time doing the job. Military leaders