Strategic Direction On The United States

The quick evolving military environment, needs the US Army redouble its efforts to reduce the uncertainty associated with the downsizing. There are some predominant principles that can guide the Army’s efforts in minimizing the impact of uncertainty during the force reduction. Even with major political and legislative challenges, keeping balance among the different proportions of readiness is a goal of US defense policy. During the budgetary preparation, downsizing of the armed forces often becomes one of the first victims of fiscal reduction. This was true of the years between World War I and World War II, when the Great Depression made military preparedness a very low national priority. The Army’s downsizing effect put its readiness

Consequently, the Obama Administration has silenced defense leader for a long time, so he could keep his Budget Control Act or (BCA). For example “8 years under the Obama Administration, top defense officials were largely silenced and prevented from articulating their concerns about budget cuts and decreased readiness”(Cooper pg1). The Obama Administration neglected top defense officials, which has resulted in “Army has lost more than 205,000 soldiers, or 30 percent of its staff”(Spencer). Nevertheless, this has also resulted in “3 of 58 Army brigade combat teams are considered ready for combat”(Cooper). Conversely, Obama cut down the military so far that America has 150,000-225,000 troops ready in the Army when all of our combat teams should be ready for combat, so that the armed forces can protect America’s interests at home and abroad. Moreover, the Army is not the only who has experienced decreased readiness, for example, there have been budget cuts across the board which have resulted in “The Air Force is the smallest and oldest it has ever been”(Cooper). “80 percent of the United States Marine Corps or (USMC) do not have the minimum number of aircraft they need for training and basic operations”(Cooper). “The Navy’s fleet is the smallest it has been in nearly 100 years”(Cooper). “Maintenance period will increase costs 2.6 times”(Pickup). Accordingly, all parts of the Armed forces have experienced budget cuts

Between 1918 and 1953 there was a major change regarding the foreign policy of the United States. At the end of the First World War, we practiced a foreign policy that was first established by George Washington in his Farewell Address back in 1796, which set a precedent of isolationism that was adopted until the beginning of World War II. Following Washington 's Neutrality Proclamation, the US did not engage in many global affairs such as the French Revolution and remained neutral through all foreign affairs. At the end of World War I, we continued to practice isolationism by not engaging in foreign affairs and limiting military spending believing that by pursuing this policy we could maintain peace and avoid war. Unfortunately, this

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.

eBay first entered the Chinese market in 2002 by acquiring a 33% stake in its local counterpart, EachNet, followed by a full acquisition a year later in 2003. Critically assess eBay.s choice of market entry strategy for China (use Key Country Matrix), listing both the advantages and disadvantages of its acquisition strategy (use Drivers (YIP) -CAGE Matrix). 30%

The third issue that was discussed in these articles is a strong disconnect between what is being planned vs reality. Following 9/11, Pentagon budget went up significantly to justify the ongoing fight against global terrorism. However, if we look carefully, it is obvious that a higher percentage of the defense budget is going to fund Cold war era programs and may reduce readiness for Asymmetric warfare we are currently experiencing or may experience more in future. Additionally, unreliable information coming from DOD’s accounting system makes it extremely difficult to generate future force projections and cost estimates based on past and present status of expenditures. Overall, it creates an unrealistic ballooning defense budget that is not economically sustainable.

To spend or not to spend, that is the question. America is torn, not sure whether it should increase military spending or if it should considerably slash the budget. Advocates for a higher defense budget claim more spending will lead to a stronger, better trained military, which would in turn help secure our status as the superlative military power of the world. However, supporters of the defense budget cuts argue for a reduction in troop size, which they believe would save the country billions and allow the nation to focus those savings on next generation technology for protection. This argument has raged for decades with no solution in sight. Maybe we have been approaching this problem all wrong. Perhaps, instead of the shortsighted approach of either raise or lower the budget, we try a smarter, more efficient method of spending to ensure every dollar of our annual military budget positively impacts our national defense.

In 1958, as the United States Government sought to reorganize its defense establishment, President Dwight D. Eisenhower argued that “separate ground, sea and air warfare is gone forever. If ever again we should be involved in war, we will fight in all elements, with all services, as one single concentrated effort.” Eisenhower based his assessment on his experiences as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II, but his insight has had a tremendous influence on the way that the armed services fight. Today the armed services operate as a joint force, yet each service provides important capabilities, some of which are unique to that service alone. Through law, Congress has assigned certain roles to each service. These are the “broad

Moreover, the Army is not the only who has experienced decreased readiness, for example, there have been budget cuts across the board which have resulted in “The Air Force is the smallest and oldest it has ever been”(Cooper). “80 percent of United States Marine Corps or (USMC)  do not have the minimum number of aircraft they need for training and basic operations”(Cooper). “The Navy’s fleet is the smallest it has been in nearly 100 years”(Cooper). Accordingly, all parts of the Armed forces have experienced budget cuts due to lack of attention and the fact of a president who does believe in the armed forces. The BCA has forced liquidations and sequestrations on the armed forces which has caused them to seriously decline in the past 5 years under the Obama Administration. Notwithstanding, to fix this problem we will need to provide more funding for the armed forces and repeal the BCA and other military sequestration

Walter Russel Mead, a Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, believes that “American strategy for U.S. foreign policy is shaped from four distinct schools of thought: Hamilton and his protectionist toward commence, Wilson and his sense of moral principles; Jefferson and his maintenance of our democratic system; and Jackson, the advocate of populist values and military might.” Henry Kissinger argued that one of these schools has dominated American strategy and stated, “It is above all to the drumbeat of Wilsonian idealism that American foreign Policy has marched since his watershed presidency, and continues to march to this day.” After reviewing many of the actions and statements made by the presidencies since Woodrow Wilson, during and after the Cold War, there is no doubt that Henry Kissinger is correct in his statement.

On Monday, 24 February 2014, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced massive cuts to the size of the armed services, slashing the army to its pre-World War II size. (breithbart.com) Hagel’s plan called for a 25% reduction in manpower by 2019. Historically, these cuts equate to a perceived failure of will power of the American government by its global enemies. Such cuts are sure to decrease the readiness posture of fighting units across the military. First order effects from cuts to funding equate to poorly maintained equipment, reduced personnel readiness, as well as fewer opportunities for professional military educational type schools. Second order effects include gaps in the NCO and officer corps due to lack of funds to send

The foreign policy of the United States of America is the process in which it cooperates with foreign nations and sets guidelines of communication for the rest of the world. The foreign policy of the United States is the strategy by which the United States communicates with foreign countries. The U.S. has a powerful influence in this world. The global reach of the United States is backed by a $14.3 trillion dollar economy, roughly a quarter of worldwide GDP, and a protection spending plan of $711 billion, which represents around half of worldwide military spending. The U.S. Secretary of State is the foreign minister and is the authority accused of state-to-state strategy, despite the fact that the president has ultimate power over foreign

Normally, before any new equipment can be purchased, the need must be proven and prioritized (MRAPs, Irregular Warfare, and Pentagon Reform, 20). The Pentagon uses the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS) to determine requirements and only select projects are important enough to be considered by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and the others are passed down to lower levels (Ibid.). JROC and JCIDS assist the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff counsel the Secretary of Defense on the military capabilities (Ibid.). The process of determining requirements is laborious due to the number of compromises and concerns that need to be considered before making a decision to spend billions of dollars. Key issues for consideration include the importance of the requirement to mission success and determining the best resources required to satisfy the need (Ibid.). Other considerations include impacts to training, tactics, doctrine, organizations, leader development, personnel, and facilities (Ibid.). The requirements process is purposely designed to be strenuous since its goal is to decrease waste and take full advantage of benefits (Ibid.). The main point is that is not possible to acquire military equipment without a validated requirement or without considering if other less costly solutions might address the problem. Although the normal acquisition process focuses primarily on future requirements, it does permit a review of urgent needs from field commanders (Ibid.). Finally, the normal acquisition process requires a sequential phasing process characterized by developmental testing, operational testing, production, integration, fielding, disposal and requirements refining (Dikici,

There will be significant global security challenges facing the United States Military by 2025. The U.S will face multiple, coinciding security issues from state actors and regional networks all taking full benefit of rapid science and technological changes. Three overlapping conflicts which has the greatest potential to influence state and non-state actors and force the Armed Forces to restructure their formations are “Wars of Silicon, Iron, and Shadow. “The United States must design an innovative readiness and investment strategy to successfully deal with all three.” These innovative concepts support Combatant Commanders so; they can win in full spectrum operations and defend U.S. interests at home and overseas. QDR 2014 provides the framework to counter these threats, which are, rebalance for full spectrum conflicts, prioritize U.S. posture to protect U.S. interest, and rebalance the capability, capacity, and readiness of the Joint Force. Joint Force 2025 will need to rebalance, be technologically superior, prioritize capabilities to deter hybrid adversaries, implement and mitigate stringent risk control measures; in addition, contend with the multifarious budgetary constraints.

The USA exercises its foreign policy through financial aid. For example, scarcity relief in North Korea provides not only humanitarian aid but also a base for the development of democratic ideals and bodies.