Military End States Case Study

Originally influenced by the strategic events seen throughout the Napoleonic Wars in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the nine principles of war derived from the United States’ Army’s “Principles of War and Operations” outline a basic strategic guide on waging war. Shortly before the military adopted these guidelines, however, the United States of America saw civil unrest as the Southern states seceded to form the Confederate States of America. As the Union Army of the North battled the Confederate Army of the South, strategic principles similar to those outlined in the U.S. Army’s doctrine began to appear on the battlefield. Although the armies of the Union and the Confederacy both utilized strategic elements outlined in the United States’ Army’s “Principles of War and Operations”, the Union army’s stricter adherence to certain strategic principles resulted in their ultimate success.

Army Directive Publication, 3-28 (2012) explains how these three new doctrines work together to clarify how we as a nation will respond to future domestic operations:

forces to Mexico just as they do in Iraq and Afghanistan, or at a minimum, line the bordering states. Abundant military power at the borders, using lethal force, can eliminate any obtrusive force. Having the strength of the U.S. military will also empower the Mexican people to take back their country from the treacherous cartels. Intense U.S. military training can also provide the Mexican military with the tools needed to fight terrorism. A strong U.S. presence will also help diminish the corruption throughout the Mexican police organization. Moreover, military presence and force is an option that is favorable because of its potential positive

Earth is fragmented with the idea of nations. Though fasted communication networks have made the world smaller, borderless world seems a distant dream. Each nation in the world possesses fancy military weapons, whole big chunk of uniformed soldiers in the name of self defense. Yes, there are always pros and cons associated with the military. At the time of natural disasters, military is the one who lends helping hand much faster. But sometimes brutality of the military while evading the other nation cannot be overlooked. United States of America (USA) considered as the mighty nation in the world possess biggest military in the world. Any international dispute, international terrorism, US military does not stay behind

Task Force Normandy created by 1st Battalion, 101st Airborne Air Assault Division in order to complete mission “Normandy” that consisted in destroying Saddam Hussein’s key Early Radar Detection System during his invasion in Kuwait to provide the air campaign with a radar free route into Iraq.

In order to develop effective solutions for complex military problems, the Joint Community within the US Military adopted the methodology of Operational Design in Joint Doctrine. This methodology addresses the concept of complex, ill-structured or “wicked” problems. In fact, Lessons Learned as a result of operations conducted over the last 15 years played an instrumental role in the continued development of this doctrine. Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) illustrates a perfect case study for evaluation utilizing this methodology. Therefore, the intent of this paper is to evaluate US Military campaign planning for OIF by using operational design as the framework for this analysis. First, this paper looks at how planners and commanders interpreted pre-invasion civilian policy guidance, their understanding of the current operational environment, and how these commanders defined the problem. Next, it identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the initial approach. After discussing this initial approach, this paper examines how commanders assessed the campaign and refined the approach – to include how the reframing occurred. Lastly, it provides examples of how these lessons learned shaped current joint planning policy and doctrine.

As a part of the FY17 Future Warfare Study Framework, the HD Concept is revised to provide relevant operational context in order to better identify first-order human performance requirements for Soldier and Team overmatch. This context would help refine the nature and characteristics of future warfare and inform not only our thinking about “How the Army Fights,” but equally important “How Humans

Accordingly, the Army’s theory of warfare, Unified Land Operations (ULO), provides a framework, inherently supported by operational art that enables the United States to maintain a position of advantage. First, ULO and operational art

Without the United States military, the nation would still be ruled by britain and the nation would be a lot different. The military provides help for natural disasters, terrorism, and crimes nationally and even internationally. They shut down threats before the public even notices, and protects our country from extremely threatful terrorist attacks. All of this comes with extreme training so you know that you are in the right hands of the people that will give their life to save yours.

When Ted Turner was launching his cable-TV empire in the '80s, he paid the bills by selling commercial space to anyone who had anything to sell.

Within days of Iraqi forces invading Kuwait in 1990, President Bush publicly backed the United Nations’ (UN) stance on the incursion with four national strategic objectives and determined that, ‘if invited, US forces would be deployed to deter further Iraqi attacks, defend Saudi Arabia and enforce UN resolutions.’ From the national strategic objectives, the military end-state is deduced. The military end-state is a conceptual element of operational design which describes the conditions that forces must achieve to attain strategic objectives/ hand over main effort responsibilities. The military end-state does not necessarily indicate the end of a military activities to attain national objectives. While one specific national objective would not

Warfare State is a book that argues that it was World War II, rather than the New Deal, that has shaped the postwar consensus in America to support a stronger, more active federal government. In this book Sparrow talks about the generation that fought World War II and how they had lived under a more powerful federal government than any other Americans before them. The book talks about the shift from the Depression Era New Deal state to the beginning wartime one. Sparrow persuasively argues that regardless of the overall growth of the national state during the 1930s to deal with Depression-era problems, the state never did prove its strength.

Assessment of the Establish Civil Security (LOE) and the linkage to the overall end state:

The military and CIA grew its capabilities in all aspects of it operations, some of the biggest included electronic surveillance and electronic countermeasures. Aircraft for specific electronic warfare missions were created and some existing aircraft were modified for the electronic warfare mission. Reconnaissance aircraft also enjoyed advances in electronics during this time as well as new “Spy” satellites for places manned aircraft could not go safely.

The operational environment is the framework the military uses to define a how we will create a concept to defeat an enemy. To help paint the picture of the operational environment the Army uses the acronym PMESSII-PT. PMESSII-PT stands for Politics, Military, Economic, Social, Information, Infrastructure, Physical Environment, and Time . I do not believe there are one or two areas that can be focused on and have a successful outcome in combat. GEN David Petraeus stated, “there are no purely military solutions in Afghanistan.”1