The Advancement Of Technology And Communications Has Changed The Landscape Of The World

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.

Technology has changed drastically from the 1970s to now. We have exceeded what most people back then could ever imagine. The technology used in schools, homes, and in public places has evolved into technology that makes the “cutting edge” technology of the 70s look very simple. Things such as the personal computer, the cell phone, electronic games, TVs, and even watches have changed completely. The ways that they have exceeded expectations is truly unbelievable.

The army is grounded in the concept of protecting human rights, with the use of lethal force, but only when necessary. (CG TRADOC, 2010, p.11) This is accomplished by following moral judgment, adapting to operational context, and instilling professional values and virtues. (CG TRADOC, 2010, p.13) To continue to meet aspersions of professionalism four basic responsibilities to moral values must remain constant. These require a clear understanding of the value of the operation, the threat posed by the enemy, the permissible moral cost to us and the enemy, and a clear vision of what winning is. (CG TRADOC, 2010, p.13) Following the four responsivities allows a Soldier to properly view the principal use of force and the concepts of necessity, discrimination, and proportionality. (CG TRADOC, 2010, p.14) Although there are many pieces of this puzzle they must all be working in unison or there will be split from what is morally right, causing the actions of the individual and the organization to drift away from the professionalism that is required. When these pieces are working together a Soldier will have a clear idea of self-command, empathy, and moral pride; versus when these pieces diverge a Soldier will begin to struggle to find their moral compass and embody these additional traits. (CG TRADOC, 2010,

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

When comparing and contrasting among history, literature, psychology, in terms of the central concern, values, approaches, and the connection they share with the community, one will find the transformations of the culture in war amazing. Throughout the test of time, the central concern has always been having power for the US. History shows that winning wars, being a power house, a leader, is about domination. The mentality is to win, allowing for authority. The values of the culture in war have transformed. One of the values was in the soldiers’ fight not life. With time, the human life of the troop gained significance. As people of the country gained financial security, they no longer wanted to be obligated to military affairs, allowing for a militarism that meant no forcing of war, but instead financing troops. The change in “revolutionary technologies” has also given way to a more futuristic approach when handling military affairs. The advancements has made it so that war is no longer a must, or a fight for survival, but a business that as lead to power. The text explains the American people are no longer involved as once before, instead they have detached from affairs of the

The notion of an American way of war informs how scholars, policymakers, and strategists understand how Americans fight. A way of war—defined as a society’s cultural preferences for waging war—is not static. Change can occur as a result of important cultural events, often in the form of traumatic experiences or major social transformations. A way of war is therefore the malleable product of culturally significant past experiences. Reflecting several underlying cultural ideals, the current American way of war consists of three primary tenets—the desire for moral clarity, the primacy of technology, and the centrality of scientific management systems—which combine to create a preference for decisive, large-scale conventional wars with clear objectives and an aversion to morally ambiguous low-intensity conflicts that is relevant to planners because it helps them address American strategic vulnerabilities.

War is not a common phenomenon anymore after the post cold war era. According a research conducted on active armed conflict across the world at the Uppsala University in Sweden, of all the 101 active armed conflicted between the late 80s and mid 90s, only six were actually between two different states (Solenberg &Wallensteen, 1997). These statistics clearly indicates that the conflict in today's world is more internal and ethnic based.

As a young officer bitter over the Vietnam War, Powell pondered “the what went wrong syndrome … which created a lively ferment.”2 He disagreed with how the war was run and often struggled with “looking to the other for answers that never came conundrums.”3 As a rising strategic leader, Powell was beginning to understand the “implications of the advice given … and the propensity for operating comfortably at the joint, interagency, intergovernment, and multinational levels.”4 He was also starting to grasp from “personal experience; cultural awareness”5,6 the importance of understanding what military objectives are, who sets them and why.

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

Over the next ten years, honor and values must be stressed in the military. The American people trust the military more than they trust their own elected officials. As

Combating in modern warfare does not simply mean killing the enemy. There are ethical rules and standards of behavior that soldiers must strictly follow because these rules are essential for defeating the enemy, winning "hearts and minds" of potential allies, and maintain the morale of the troops. These tasks have become especially challenging in the face of the proliferation of guerilla warfare that has been adopted by weaker military forces in the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries. In fighting insurgencies, abiding by the ethical standards of the Army behavior may be even harder than in fighting conventional battles. The ethical rules may sometimes put the soldiers in dangerous positions. Disregarding the acceptable standards of behavior, however, may have even graver consequences, putting innocent non-combatants at risk and risking total demoralization of the Army unit participating in disorderly behavior. It is therefore essential that Army leaders maintain an ethical command climate during the war.

Martin van Creveld wrote The Transformation of War book in 1991 when he detailed a predictive hypothesis about the changing character of war into what he called ?Nontrinitarian War. There were conflicts arise as intrastate wars and were not based on the simplified version of Clausewitz?s ?remarkable trinity? of government, people and military forces (Van Creveld, 1991, pg. 49). In his book, Van Creveld offers an account of warfare in the previous millennium and suggests what the future might hold. The drive was that major war was draining and the emergence of forms of war ?that are simultaneously old and new? now threatened to create havoc.

Military Professionalism cannot be incontestably defined, unless it is phrased in terms of what it seeks to address: the relationship between the civilian and military spheres and the traditions and skills necessary to conduct effective exercises of power on behalf of the state. Thus, Military Professionalism may be defined as any combination of behaviors, traits, values, and skills which lead to an optimal outcome in these categories. Huntington and Janowitz differ insofar as they attempt to describe different methods by which Military Professionalism is arrived at, though their core metrics are similar insofar as they agree upon the existence of an optimal level of power for the military to possess in relation to the civilian government.

This essay will suggest a hybrid approach to the conflicts of the 21st century utilising a broad range of tactics.

Technology is altering the landscape of the world at a capricious pace. Computers are a mainstay in most homes and internet connections occur daily. Family members from across the web connect through video chat services such as Skype and social media sites (Jenicus & Sager, 2001).The usage of smartphones and social media has increased undeniably in the past decade. Children bring smartphones with them to elementary school and learn on computer tablets in class. Communication technology has seen advances on the internet, newsgroups, chat rooms, email, video conferencing, text messaging and other computer-based learning (Negretti, 2001). No longer is information limited by the local library, but instead individual have access to all the information on the internet.