Social Cost Of War Analysis

“For the Common Defense, a military history of the United States from 1607-2012” is a military historic book written by Allan R. Millet, Peter Maslowski, and William B. Feis. Millet is a historian and a retired colonel of the Marine Corps. Maslowski is a professor at the University of Nebraska. Feis is a professor at Buena Vista University. This book was published in September 2012. It focuses on chronologically describing the changes of the United States military for over 400 years. Even though that is the main purpose, it does include political information. Although this book does not have an exact thesis, its purpose is to inform readers of the creation and enhancements of the US military. At almost 700 pages, this book educates about

Wars are often glorified in tone to give praise and respect for those on the battlefields. There is an overall understanding that there are sacrifices needed in order to accomplish a larger goal. Excluded from this understanding is the realization that the effects of war

A) The title of the book is The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War and the author is Andrew Bacevich. The book was published in New York, New York by the publisher Oxford University Press in the year 2005. It is the first edition and contains 270 pages.

The United States is a militaristic country because of the military budget, the military’s expansion into civilian areas, and military culture. The large and increasing budget of the military is an example of U.S. militarism. According to National Priorities

Following World War II, President Eisenhower coined the term "military-industrial complex" to describe the relationship between private arms manufacturers, the armed forces and the government. This coalition collaborated to bloat the American military budget in order to make money for the companies. Corruption in the government contributed to allowing this. The

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 American soldiers fighting in foreign lands create a high cost of war. The multiple factors related to the high cost of maintaining America’s vast military bases in foreign lands is not sustainable, but the human cost of families coping with injuries suffered in war by home coming vets from foreign wars is not acceptable either. The foreign and political sides are the cost of maintaining a large military presence here and abroad is not feasible. Whereas, the concerns of war over domestic issues must be a balance between military spending and infrastructure was in America’s best interest. The main focus on key issues like causalities, political, foreign, and lobbyist and much more topics

On January 17, 1961 President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to the nation, his final public speech as President of the United States. As such it was his last opportunity to address the nation, on any subject of his choice, with the authority, prestige and preeminence that comes with the office of President of the United States. His choice, what he termed the Military Industrial Complex, was perhaps something that at the time did not register in the mind of the average American as a priority when placed along the topics of the Communism, the Cold War and nuclear war. Yet, as it turns out the issue regarding the Military Industrial Complex and Eisenhower's warnings about it have outlasted the fears of the mid 20th century.

In the thirty years after the War of 1812, the United States gradually and painstakingly developed its army from a nascent confederation of independent state militiamen, volunteers, and a disproportionately smaller group of regular soldiers into a corporate body of professionals with seemingly common standards of training, doctrine, and, arguably, discipline. Referred to as the “Thirty Year’s Peace,”

United States involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last thirteen years has resulted in much debate over the role of the United States military. This debate is encouraged, as it will sustain conversation of how to best employ an important yet dwindling national resource. The publication of Dominic Tierney’s article “Why Has America Stopped Winning Wars” speaks directly to this debate. The article argues that the US military has lost the capability of winning wars since World War II . Tierney posits that the world is a more peaceful place and the United States is incapable of adapting to the resultant style of low intensity conflict that normally rises with state peace. He believes the U.S. government has a lust for global hegemony. The excessive use of military force is the only way to quench Washington’s thirst He concludes with an implication that American’s victory culture has led to disillusionment of our government’s expectations, and that this culture should be reexamined in order to prevent unnecessary loss of life in the future. Although Tierney makes a valiant effort to question US military strategic efforts over the last 70 years, he fails to realize that America’s emphasis on national security is a major contributing factor for why the world has seen a reduction in state-on-state war.

The Military Industrial Complex is the circular relationship between the Department of Defense, Congress, and large military corporations. The corporations give large campaign contributions to members of congress. Then, Congress gives funding to the Department of Defense who then contracts the corporations. This is a beneficial and profitable relationship for all parties involved, creating a powerful incentive for the continuance of war. In 1961, President Eisenhower warned the American people of the dangers of this relationship, calling it a threat to democracy.

By slow stages, large and sustained military expenditures produced an enduring Military-Industrial Complex with the self-serving consequences suggested by the World War II economy and, more seriously, with the potential for perpetuating the forces of modern warfare which had provided for the initial growth of such a complex (90).

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper

Wars are expensive (in money and other resources), destructive (of capital and human capital), and disruptive (of trade, resource availability, labor management). Large wars make up severe shocks to the economies of participating countries. Despite some positive aspects of short-term stimulation and long-term destruction and rebuilding, war generally impedes economic

The book “The Sociology of War and Violence”, gives an insight of how war can be understood from different perspectives. While war is believed by some that people come together in solidarity, the chapters on nationalism and war as well as propaganda and war, analyzed important factors such as the understanding of war and its impact on societies culture at a macro level. It is easy to argue that we can easily assume war brings the best in individuals when society is facing mutual concerns and worries. When society comes together as one it brings a sense of solidarity and strength giving us a sense of power. This is a common feeling, for instance, lets consider us when it comes down to support our military; above all things, despite our differences in religion, socio-economic status, ages, gender, etc.… majority support their actions because they make sense and they are in the