Military Is A Powerful Defense System Vital For A Governed Nations Democracy

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

During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will

In addition to how we serve, it is what we do that the American people place a great deal of trust. The Army accomplishes its missions and fulfills its obligations to the American people through the third characteristic military expertise. Trust is a crucial component of the characteristic military expertise since we ask the American people to trust that we will be the experts in proficiency, efficiency, and distribution of land combat power. They expect the Army to develop continually, our technology, tactics, and ourselves in order to defend the country, its Commonwealths, possessions, and interests. “The American people trust that the Army as a profession will produce the expert work when and where needed”(Don Snider) Occasionally we hear of drone strikes that kill multiple civilians, sometimes a few while others are unfortunately over 1,000.

The United States paid a high cost politically for the Vietnam War. The war weakened many American’s faith in our government, and the public also doubted the honesty and competence of its leaders. Americans were skeptical, if not cynical and held a high degree distrust and suspicion towards authority of any kind. This pretty much described the views of an increasing number of Americans following the Vietnam War (Chambers II, 1999).

Civilian control of the military is a government policy, written in the constitution, that places responsibility of the the head of the Defense Department in the hands of a civilian political leader rather than a military officer. This doctrine, however, is coming to an end. According to Document 2, military personnel are required to wait 7 years after retirement to gain a civilian position. President Trump has ignored this practice by appointing generals and lieutenant generals to cabinet or high-ranking positions. This proves that the United States is a militaristic country because the military is now moving into positions, that were previously reserved for civilians.

George C. Herring had addressed one of the more major impact of the war on our foreign policy in “America and Vietnam: the Unending War,” and had stated that “... Success in the Gulf war no doubt raised the nation's confidence in its foreign policy leadership and it's military institutions…” (Document 9). This suggest that the United States foreign policy had at one point gotten somewhat stronger due to the effects of the war, however, Herring goes on to state that it had a negative effect on the nations inhibitions abroad. The U.S foreign policy also had changed because of the war when The United States ended the military draft and switched to an all-volunteer army, as well as when Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which had set limits on presidential ability to send troops into combat without the consent from congress. This choice had showed the desire for the United States to not be involved in another war like the Vietnam war.

The 23rd Federalist Paper discusses how to protect and defend Americans from exotic aggression. Hamilton believed that even the Articles of Confederation showed how important the military was because they were providing Congress to make unlimited requests for men and money to direct their operations. He made the essentials clear for a new constitution. In that constitution, the three branches needed to be sufficient in order to do the people’s job. Those jobs were preserve peace, regulate commerce and diplomacy. It states that the Federal Gov’t should be responsible in raising and supporting the armies, the judiciary, and regulation of commerce while arguing that a vibrant government with the powers must provide the means to achieve them in

In a 2015 article, “Is U.S. military becoming outdated?” written by Stuart Bradin, Keenan Yoho, and Meaghan Keeler-Pettigrew, the authors argued that despite the U.S. military maintaining a position of global dominance “without peer” during conventional operations, it is not the ideal force against current and future threats. The authors claim that there are several negative factors arising due to the past sixteen years of war against several state and non-state elements, inferior cultural differences of government bureaucracy compared to commercial firms, and a misallocation of defense spending that leaves the US military waging war inefficiently while simultaneously losing technological dominance against current and future threats.

The U.S. Constitution provides power to the President and Congress to develop and enact national security policy (Ulrich, 1). As such our civilian leaders have the right and responsibility to maintain oversight of the military. Two civil-military relations theories, Normal and Clausewitzian, offer competing views. The Normal theory suggests officers are professionals and interference from civilian leaders is inappropriate (Cohen, 4). The Clausewitzian theory contends the statesman may inject himself in any aspect of military strategy since

The Cold War era proxy war known as the Vietnam War wrecked global havoc during 1955-1975. Although the destruction on the ground occurred in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the bloodshed of the war was just one part of a much larger worldwide communism versus capitalism battle headed by the United States and the Soviet Union. For the U.S., diplomatic and military policies had never before been so tightly intertwined with domestic policies. The war in Vietnam had such an impact on the home front in America that the term, “The Vietnam Syndrome” is still repeated to this day. The war, which is sometimes seen as a part of the larger anti-communist policy of ‘containment’, is largely to blame for the near destruction of three presidencies, as well as causing numerous political and social divides, a detrimental effect on the U.S. economy, and a credibility gap that caused distrust between government and the people. The focus on the war meant that many domestic issues such as the civil rights movement, the war on poverty, and Johnson’s ideology of the ‘Great Society’, were neglected by the government and therefore limited in their progress. The overall domestic impact of the war in Vietnam was largely negative and extremely divisive.

Although war comes with risk, leaders often find it inevitable when it comes to assuring the safety of their citizens. The Vietnam War was a significant movement in history that extended from 1965 – 1973 through the political years of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. The antiwar movement caused division within the administration as to the deciding factors of the United States involvement in Vietnam. Their decisions caused the most traumatizing event of the 20th Century. More than two decades ago the longest war ended, yet questions remain unanswered: what was the motivation of President Kennedy and his administration (Nolting, Lodge, Rusk and McNamara) to get involved in the Vietnam War, the role of Diem and the escalation of

The military industrial complex was a term coined by Eisenhower in this speech. It has been defined as the intrenching of the military into the government of a country. In this he feared that having a perpetual military force, and even worse a constantly active military could infringe the rights of Americans. How would this happen? Well, in America, there is not a strict democracy. America is a representative democracy. This means that Americans do not vote for all of their decisions. Switzerland is a true democracy. They vote in every election for everything. However, in America citizens elect people to be in charge of their voting. Americans give up power to politicians so people don’t need to worry about laws and regulation. Because of this Americans allow them to have the keys to their money, powers and the future of their nation. This is a great

The investigation assesses the level of success President Richard Nixon’s Vietnamization policy attained during the Vietnam War to end U.S. involvement in the war. In the strive to evaluate the level of success this policy demonstrated, the investigation evaluates the ability of the policy to equip, expand, and train Southern Vietnamese forces and allocate them to a substantial combat position, all while simultaneously reducing the quantity of U.S. combat troops in a steady manner. The Vietnamization policy is investigated and analyzed by both its causes and effects. The motivation that led to Nixon’s creation of this

Limiting the President’s influence paves way for a structured delegation of power, even without an explicit consent from the President. The military generals and the tactical planners conceptualize multiple scenarios. Some of these scenarios include having a president that is unreachable due to communication breakdown or the

Military Professionalism cannot be incontestably defined, unless it is phrased in terms of what it seeks to address: the relationship between the civilian and military spheres and the traditions and skills necessary to conduct effective exercises of power on behalf of the state. Thus, Military Professionalism may be defined as any combination of behaviors, traits, values, and skills which lead to an optimal outcome in these categories. Huntington and Janowitz differ insofar as they attempt to describe different methods by which Military Professionalism is arrived at, though their core metrics are similar insofar as they agree upon the existence of an optimal level of power for the military to possess in relation to the civilian government.