Military Policy Essay

Over the course of history, the strategic environment has changed rapidly and is now more complex than ever before – it is currently characterized by unpredictability and disorder, and may yet manifest itself in the collapse of nuclear armed nations, destabilizing conflict in geo-politically vital regions, and humanitarian crises. A world of disparate actors – not all nation states – now exists. Unpredictable events will continue to cause strategic surprise. The widespread effects of past conflicts such as World War II, Vietnam and the Iraq war are still being felt and have created significant strategic repercussions. The failures of these conflicts are the result of our military and political leaders’ failure to quickly adapt to wartime conditions. This occurs because of a general refusal to commit to a military culture of learning that encourages serious debate, critical assessments of our military operations, and challenges to our doctrine in the face of emerging change. Additionally, leaders have struggled with the critical responsibility of forecasting and providing for a ready force, one that is well-resourced and prepared to conduct future operations. It is the responsibility of our military and political leaders to send our military to war with a ready force, and a strategy that will ultimately result in victory. But understanding war and warriors is critical if societies and governments are to make sound judgments concerning military policy.

“President Obama has, conveniently, rewritten the standard of military strategy to conform to his defense-budget-cutting desires”(Bucci, 1). This quote shows how someone can manipulate the budget to make people think it is going to be for the better, but there are always two sides to a story. The defense budget cuts are causing the military a plethora of stresses because it’s taking away some training programs, benefits from soldiers, and even making America look tenuous.

Over years, America has spent heavily in increasing Military stockpiles and sending missions in foreign war-ravaged countries. In such countries as Iraq, Syria and Sudan, such huge expenditure have not yielded proportionate and satisfactory results. Therefore, the foreign military campaigns have largely remained cosmetic since violence on such countries resume thereafter. Additionally, those who bear the burden are the American taxpayers whose toil go down in drain without reward. The reason for failure is that America had not invested in addressing the causal roots of the problems resulting in violence in the countries (Carroll, & Sage Publications, 2003). In its stead, America will invest further in enhancing diplomacy and constructive engagements, aimed at correcting long standing causes of the wars. At the same time, the party proposes more stringent measures in protecting Federal frontiers through strong legislation on immigration and deployment of Forces to avert foreign

Many people are concerned about the U.S. military because of how many risks come with joining it. However, the U.S. military also explains the benefits that one could receive. Joining the military is a decision that should not be taken lightly. One must understand all aspects of the military. In order for a voter to be fully informed about joining the US military, one must consider both the risks, like mental illnesses and commitment and benefits, like education, and experience.

Hanson’s 2012 premise, albeit over two years old today, is immediately discernible: America faces devastating self-inflicted wounds by implementing the current Administration’s defense spending budget. The dawn of 2014 finds this debate ongoing and the implementation of this budget well in progress, with even more drastic cuts taking effect than the ones analyzed by Hanson previously. While few historians of repute would argue against the reality that the siren song of defense reductions has lured the nation onto the shoals of unpreparedness for future conflict many times in the past, two shortcomings in Hanson’s piece beckon us to pause and reexamine.

In the past America has been a dominant superpower in the field of military strength, but for the last few decades, our military has encountered abounding liquidations and sequestrations, which lead to huge budget cuts. Nevertheless, America has faced many politicians planning to cut down on our military by virtue of it is simply cost effective. The Clinton Foundation has been cutting our military for countless years. Also, under the Obama Administration has been enacting laws comparable to the Budget Control Act or (BCA) which has been siphoning our military for the past 8 years. For countless years, defense officials remain silent due to the Obama Administration, vaguely America could keep its budget under control. Consequently, all four

The very politicians and diplomats that enable the new Domocratic state will also limit the military to the minimum necessary. According to Dr. Gardner in his lecture Clausewitz believed the maximum military effort would be based on a combination of “diplomacy and the amount of military force to adequately achieve it”. I contend that our nations focus on fighting as a State and forming States that resemble ours those very same politicians and diplomats would be hesitant to due what is truly needed to stop a negative force such as Communism or Terrorism. After Desert Storm Saddam Hussein was allowed to stay in power from 1991 till 2003 when the US led forces to remove him from power (Hawkins pg 309). This apprehension to take difinitive action is not unique to the United States, but as Hawkins points out was evident in the Roman Empire some 1,300 years ago when it shifted from moderations(limited war) to full war. F.J. Bing West highlights the need to go "All-in" versus achieve the maximum with minimal cost which is the American position of late (pg 393). State-to-State engagements are suited for Full Wars, but the current GWOT is being fought as a limited war primarily in 3-4 states globally.

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 function of the military forces for the United States has had no choice but to evolve as wars wax and wane. As the rise of militant terrorist groups became a threat to the United States and its allies, the armed forces of the United States were deployed by the President to countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. Instability in these countries threatened bordering allies, and after September 11, 2001, the threat was brought to U.S. soil. Each president from Clinton to Obama has had to shape the policy of how the armed forces fit into civil-military policies abroad and overseas. In a war time environment, such as Iraq, the purpose of how the military should be deployed is easier to clearly state. But in times when there is no imminent threat, it is much more difficult to transition

First, although the Republicans have preferred defense spending and intervention more than the Democrats have since the mid 1960s, the positions on these issues of the two parties were reversed before then. Strategic conflict in which avoidance by potential

Steve Cohen, a former member of the Board of Directors of the United States Naval Institute at Annapolis, thinks that America is slowly becoming more vulnerable because of the lack of upkeep in the military. He does a good job of making the individual feel quite unsafe, somehow telling them that their lives could be in danger because we will only be able to fuel two naval vessels to the East Asian water by next year (Cohen). At first glance, it’s a dodgy connection, but his point is, if we cut spending in some areas, who is going to stop non-military politicians from cutting down more thoroughly and leaving us open to invasion or attacks from outside powers? H h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h

The United States military has never been as weak as it is under Barack Obama. In a time where the world is getting more dangerous every day, whether it is the growing threat of ISIS, Russia or North Korea, the current president insists on continuously making cuts to the military. According to an independent panel appointed by the pentagon and congress, “the shrinking U.S. armed forces, which are being downsized to fit that strategy and budget cuts, is a serious strategic misstep on the part of the United States and is inadequate given the future strategic and operational environment.” This essentially means that these cuts are weakening the military so much, that it will be ineffective to deal with global threats.

The Secretary of Defense has recently put out an article for guidance to military and government officials during the time of election and change of command of the President of the United States. In summary the article states that military and government officials are restricted from taking part in partisan political activities. “Active duty personnel may not take part in partisan political activities and should avoid the inference that their political activities or views are sponsored by the DoD”. The purpose of this essay is to examine whether this doctrine is morally right or wrong. I would argue that this doctrine is not sound and that the reasons behind it are not morally or constitutionally acceptable.

I like your analysis and particularly the highlight of the questions related to the Goldwater-Nichols Act (GNA). It was very interesting that the SASC begun with these questions which led me to the additional research on this subject. As a result, I found an interesting article written by James R. Locher III examining CMR issues raised in the GNA. Locher argues that by the early 1980s, DoD had very ineffective strategic planning, senior military leaders were providing inadequate advise to the political leadership, individual services did not understand joint interests and they were challenging operational chain of command especially the role of the SecDef, and senior leaders assigned to the joint duty assignments were inadequately prepared