Strategic Direction For Joint Operations

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.

The United States from the Cold War and into the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues to face challenges in translating military might into political desires due to its obsession with raising an army, electing politicians and assembling a diplomatic corp that continue to gravitate towards State-to-State engagements that if not rectified could lead to substantial delays in fighting terrorism and non-terrorist adversaries or worse total failure of the United States Military’s ability to properly carry out it’s politicians objectives due to being blindsided.

Globalization is a significant security trend because it will accelerate many other trends and will influence operational environments for the Joint Force in the next four to ten years. Strategic planners must assess future security trends in order to anticipate capabilities, capacity and readiness requirements that will be necessary to protect U.S. national interests. Globalization will continue to shape the operational environment as an increasing number of people, products and information flow across borders (National Military Strategy 2015, 1). The availability of information, volume and rate of people moving across borders will continue to favor non-state actors and terrorist by increasing recruiting and movement of terrorists into contact

As the 20th century saw the nature of warfare move away from line by line battalion formation fighting to trench warfare in the First World War, to the highly aggressive and audacious blitzkrieg methodology implemented by Nazi Germany in the Second World War and the introduction of counterinsurgency operations highlighted by French and then American involvement in Vietnam, so too does the nature of warfare adapt to 21st century technology and the seemingly fragile geopolitical landscape. This new form of fighting rears its ugly head in the form of hybrid warfare. As far as definitions are concerned, the United States Army defines a hybrid threat as a diverse and dynamic combination of regular forces, irregular forces, and/or criminal elements all unified to achieve mutually benefiting effects (Department of the Army, 2010). The recent event I chose that demonstrations a hybrid threat would be the Russian annexation of Crimea and its destabilization of eastern Ukraine.

1. POLICY DECISION AND OBJECTIVES: On September 10, 2014, the President released a strategy to combat the increasing threats posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). This strategy has one clear goal, to diminish and defeat the threat of ISIS not only to the United States but also to the world. The objectives in the policy address the use of all instruments of national power. The President has asked the Department of Defense to re-evaluate the current policy and provide alternate solutions to the growing threat of ISIS to the security of the United States homeland and interests abroad.

Combating a constrained fiscal environment, U.S. leadership rebalanced the national strategic environment directly impacting the DoD acquisition of the F-22A – Raptor. In that, President Obama’s 2010 NSS cited an enduring interest protecting the security of the U.S., its citizens, and allies and partners. [NSS, p.7] Furthermore, the 2010 NSS emphasized withdrawal of U.S. forces from controversial wars in the Middle East, continued participation in North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and rebalanced focus to the Asia-Pacific Region to deepen ties with Asian allies and partners. [NSS, p. 42] In essence, increasing U.S. fiscal uncertainty and elevated defense spending by Russia and China, including air defense and fighter production, closing the capabilities gap with the U.S. military [Gates, p. 3] Additionally, nations (North Korea, Iran) are procuring and developing means to disrupt U.S. influence, narrowing military options, and denying freedom of movement and action in regions of strategic importance (South China Sea).

Assessing the most pressing current national security issues for the United States is difficult following the massive transition in political leadership following the 2016 election. Fundamentally, where we observed “No-Drama” Obama adhere to principles of strategic patience and a philosophy of no doing stupid stuff, President Trump seems willing to disrupt recently accepted equations regarding American involvement in deterring Syria’s Assad regime, dissuading the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) from furthering its nuclear capacity, and presenting a firmer stance against Iranian influence in the Middle East. Fundamentally, this shift has cause the United States to be less of a steadying and stable actor in the international landscape, and more unpredictable. Simply, President Trump appears more willing to leave all options, including, for example, military intervention in North Korea, on the table, where his predecessor was less overt about such possibilities.

Due to the Iranian Nuclear Test Crisis, issues on security have risen. First off, this crisis is not just a threat to the US, but also a threat to multiple countries in the Middle East as well as throughout the world. Choosing the best strategy is important because Iran may have up to six nuclear warheads that could be used with their ballistic missile fleet and Iran has already stated that "any US-led offensive would result in Iran retaliating accordingly."5 Even though the US has not prevented Iran from achieving

The threat of devastating terrorist attacks on U.S soil has diminished, but areas of instability, poverty, inequality, and repression continue to shelter terrorism.1 South Asia, particularly in and around Afghanistan, is a region where we have made colossal strides. These steps have been achieved by partnering to decrease U.S. military presence while developing Afghan security forces; boosting access to education; enhancing human rights protection for women; taking out key targets through focused military action.1 In order to sustain and continue the progress of the last decade, South Asia terrorism security challenges necessitate an updated U.S. strategy proposal. This proposal builds off of the 2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism

The 9/11 events have placed an important pressure on the issue of security and most importantly they have redefined the way in which the war is waged at the moment. In this sense, it is nowadays widely considered the fact that unconventional warfare represents the most important threat to the national security. Therefore, the United States, as one of the most important actors on the international scene has reshaped the national security strategy in order to better and more efficiently

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.

Clausewitz defines war as an “act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” The nature of war is enduring yet the character of war changes over time. Current US strategic guidance is advancing the point of view that since the character of war has changed to focus on irregular wars then the US military should prepare for a future of irregular wars. This shift in focus forgets that the nature of war is enduring and in order to be successful, we must prepare for all types of conflict. This paper will define the types of conflict and the likelihood of each followed by a discussion of US strategic guidance and ending with an analysis of the training resources and force structure requirements needed to achieve success for all types of

Nuclear proliferation among great powers is not a top security concern because nuclear deterrence is robust. However, nuclear proliferation becomes a greater security threat as terrorist organizations in the Middle East acquire nuclear weapons. Radical, undemocratic leaders hold less value for the lives of populations and are less likely to follow the logic of nuclear deterrence. The United States must counter radical threats and prevent the use of nuclear weapons by unstable terrorist organizations through a strategy of preemption and hegemony, promoting democracy, and assassinating leaders. Moreover, the United States has to address cyber threats, asymmetric tools used by terrorists to recruit followers and potentially cause physical

THREATS A. New Power Landscape B. Broken Command C. Broken Army V. Status of Other Countries A. Iraq B. North Korea C. Iran D. Libya E. Cuba F. Pakistan G. India VI.

China and North Korea present the most significant potential security threats to the U.S. at this time. While the U.S. spends almost half the total global defense spending annually, China is growing at a rate of 17 percent annually on defense spending and demonstrate that they are willing to invest in building up their military capabilities to challenge us if needed. The U.S. defense spending on an annual basis focuses mostly on sustainment of existing infrastructure, while countries building their