Rp-Us Visiting Forces Agreement

The United Stated decided to annex the Philippines after their war with Spain because they needed their resources. Many people were upset about this idea. Some people even considered it to be a waste of time, money, and resources. People of the Philippines did not want to change their government. They had their own resources and currency that they were happy with. The United States needed the annexation of the Philippines to be able to expand their trade with other countries. They had successful economical plans for the Philippines. The United States wanted land and goods from other countries and they were not afraid to fight for it. They had the mindset of being powerful enough to take anything they wanted: “After having their eyes on a large part of Cuba’s territory, they intervened in the Cuban-Spanish war to claim it.” (Hoganson,12.) The United States became successful in all that it had set out to

(3) Military: Continues positive trends to security cooperation & reform. Received U.S. Foreign Operations Appropriations (FY 08; FMF: $4.3 million & IMET: $1 million) in lieu of FSA waivers. They seek security integration & strategic partnerships to counter terrorism, organized crime & drug trafficking. Conducts regional (GUAM) joint military exercises in order to disrupt decentralized targeting of critical infrastructure; participates in NATO Partnership for Peace program.

In fact, the United States under President Reagan formed a union with the group to help in the recruitment of forces and counterinsurgency against the Soviet Union. However, the decision of the United States to support this group in Asia was counterproductive especially after 9/11. Instead of targeting the Soviet Union, the Taliban turned their weaponry against the United States by supporting terrorist organizations. Though Pakistan also participated in the creation of the group, they failed to cooperate with the Americans to pacify its influence after 9/11. Both the United States and Pakistan had an active role to play in the formation and strengthening of the Taliban. The United States provided the group with both

“Our working definition of US overseas military presence is that it consists of all the US military assets in overseas areas that are engaged in relatively routine, regular, non-combat activities or functions.1 By this definition, forces that are located overseas may or may not be engaging in presence activities. If they are engaging in combat (such as Operation Enduring Freedom), or are involved in a one-time non-combat action (such as an unscheduled carrier battle group deployment from the United States aimed at calming or stabilizing an emerging crisis situation), then they are not engaging in presence activities. Thus, an asset that is located (or present) overseas may or may not be “engaged in presence activities,” may or may not be “doing presence.” We have thus far defined presence activities chiefly in “negative” terms—what they are not. In more positive terms, what exactly are presence activities, i.e., what do presence activities actually entail doing? Overseas military presence activities are generally viewed as a subset of the overall class of activities that the US government uses in its efforts to promote important military/security objectives [Dismukes, 1994]. A variety of recurrent, overseas military activities are normally placed under the “umbrella” concept of military presence. These include but are not limited to US military efforts overseas to train foreign militaries; to improve inter-operability of US and friendly forces; to peacefully and visibly

For the United States military to take an active role in foreign nation’s problems or situations, the President and congress have to approve the mission. The US military has played numerous roles throughout many different regions of the world. Military regions for the US are forming and processing multiple armed forces, which maintain relations and safety for certain areas of the world. The United States of America’s main goal when it comes to stationing the military in different regions of the world is too influence foreign perception. America focuses on influencing democracy, and a secure country for people throughout the world. “During the 1990s, American foreign policy focused on consolidating its success” (U.S. Military Policy). Foreign

​Secondly, The US has provided military aid to the corrupt Colombian government, which is in collusion with paramilitary death squads, who, according to the notable Jacobin Magazine, “are both Colombia’s largest human rights violators and the chief impediment to peace.” The Center for Global Development found due to this collusion, “a ten percent increase in US aid is associated with a fifteen percent rise in paramilitary

The United States’ role in Afghanistan began after the attack on September 11th. The U.S. entered Afghanistan with the clear purpose of retaliating for the attacks against the U.S. and preventing Al Qaeda from having a safe zone in Afghanistan. The degree and nature of US retaliation and further intervention in Afghanistan was governed by an adherence to ideologies developed in response to policies of the Clinton administration (Afghanistan, page 48). One such belief was the administration’s distaste for nation-building. Military operations in the former Yugoslavia and Haiti during the Clinton administration served to solidify the Bush administration’s position on the

The global trend of connectedness enhances incentives for international cooperation. This is an opportunity for countries to play an important role in advances in mutual security interests. The US has many advantages

President Barak Obama announced to the Australian parliament in November 2011 that the United States had commenced a review to establish key strategic interests in order to guide budgetary and defense priorities. The US ‘Pivot to the Pacific’ strategy commenced with President Obama declaring he had “directed my national security team to make our presence and mission in the Asia-Pacific a top priority.” A forecast reduction in military commitments in the Middle East would allow resources reallocation to the Pacific region to strengthen relationships with partner nations and counter a rise in Chinese strength. Therefore, this begs the question—why has the US postured to the Pacific?

The American military conducted countless humanitarian missions and forceful interventions across the world. But as developing countries rise, the international environment quickly approaches a more multipolar balance of power. Given this trend, some argue that America’s broad and arguably invasive security policy is unsustainable, and that military spending and foreign military operations need to be scaled-back. Others argue that the United States has a unique and important place in the world and must take measures to retain its leadership position, even at the cost of developing nations. Today, analysts of United States security policy debate an important question. Should the United States revert back to a one-dimensional security agenda with one clear objective? Moreover, should the United States direct its attention and energy towards China, its most formidable

So, this situation allows to share some burdens of the U.S. combatant commanders and JTC to other multinational partner nations. The area of burden sharing could include share cost of in building infrastructure like military bases, human resource costs, and cost for intelligence. For example, during the Gulf War, 1990-91, thirty four countries had contributed military forces, financial support as well as equipment. On top of that, the current balance of power, as Trump NSS indicated, the sum of the U.S. adversaries GDP is less than the sum of the U.S. and its allies and partners, and the number of alliance also is not comparable with as well. Having this favorable international situation, the combatant commanders and JTC will have good opportunity in protecting the U.S. homeland and abroad national interest.

The scale of American military authority, as well as our country's ability to deploy and use these resources, is way beyond degree of any present or potential enemy (Greenberg & Page, 2014). Due to our high budget spending in defense, the United States have exceeded other countries such as China, France, Germany, Italy, and others in warfare. It is important because the military is our security against our rivals. The more money that is involved with the military will only help strengthen our nation and protection for the citizens of the United States. The military is what protects us from hostile actions from any type of guerilla or terrorists threats. The United States should use its positions as the major world power to influence international relations so it could be idolized on the security of their nation, since we do exceed our budget on

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

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) were comprised of mostly Catholics from the northern provinces occupying the contested southern provinces. The local populace was almost exclusively Muslim. The history involved with the Mindanao region is rife with struggle between the Muslim Moros, who wanted independence from the Republic of Philippines, and the military. Both sides committed atrocities over the years and mistrust was a natural byproduct. Establishing legitimacy and credibility was essential for the AFP to gain the local support of the populace and deny the insurgent groups their freedom of movement. The Philippine Marines created a Civil Military Officer who would coordinate with NGOs and the local barangay leadership to participate in Civil Military Operations (CMO). These CMO activities were MEDCAPs, schoolbook distributions, and minor civil projects (such as building wells). At the time my SFODA was in the region, the AFP were more focused on assisting the populace and less focused on searching for rogue elements in the area. When asked, the AFP command told stories of how the military would send battalions of Marines who would comb the jungle searching for Abu Sayyaf or Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) members. They learned that the populace suffered and they viewed the military as an

The 'Joint and Coalition Operational Analysis (JCOA) case study is regarding the U.S-Philippines partnership in counter-terrorism (CT) operations that took place from 2002-2011. The CT operation was titled as 'Operation ENDURING FREEDOM-PHILIPPINES (OEF-P) and was conducted by the partnership of Philippine security forces and US Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF-P). The CT cooperation took place at three levels, tactical, operational, and strategic. The role of JSOTF was that of 'advise and assist' whereby ground operations were conducted by the Philippine forces. The US cooperation for CT in Philippines was guided by the Joint Publication (JP) 5-0, Joint Operation Planning, and a policy and action framework to act as a binding framework for conducting joint, interagency, and multinational CT operations using full range of military operational capacity. The OEF-P was also conducted by incorporating JP 5-0 principles and guidelines of engagement. The OEF-P took place in Southern Philippines. Following is an assessment how the US forces used termination, military end state, and objectives of operational design (Joint Pub 5-0, page III-18) to develop and refine their operational approach.