The Four Core Functions Of The Military And National Security

The military has been instrumental in the protection and development of U.S interests around the world. From the Revolutionary War, which established the United States as a nation, through the World Wars, which set up the U.S as one of the world super powers, to its current war on terror, the military has helped and protected U.S. interests around the world. During all these wars American soldiers have proudly served their country. Because of these wars America is famous throughout the world for military power and its protection of freedom in the world. Today the U.S is an international symbol of wealth and power; it has the largest Gross Domestic Product in the world as well as the strongest military. Yet even America falls prey to a

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.

During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will

This introduction is extremely powerful because the reader gets a sense of the passion that this man holds for politics and all things military and that in itself is enough to keep turning the page. A great quote from the book that really captures his viewpoint and ideals is "Today as never before in their history Americans are enthralled with military power" (p. 1); and "America will surely share the fate of all those who in ages past have looked to war and military power to fulfill their destiny. We will rob future generations of their rightful inheritance. We will wreak havoc abroad. We will endanger our security at home. We will risk the forfeiture of all that we prize" (p. 225). Bacevich goes on to elaborate how throughout history we have as a whole been so miguided into believing that war and militarism is the only answer. In the chapter “The Military Proffessional at Bay” he explains how he believes the Cold War was really just WWIII and how at the end of the Cold War America should have changed its size and role of the armed forces. He explains that since the United States had acquired so much global military presence during the 1940's that it was its responsibility to maintain that presence so

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

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.

Comprehending the underlying authority for the President of the United States to authorize the international use of military operations in order to respond to an attack or as a counter-terrorism strategy, may be difficult to fathom for those who are not familiar with practices and philosophies associated in this realm. Conducting military operations against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, detaining suspected terrorists, both indefinitely domestically and abroad, and the use of unmanned drones to disrupt and destroy suspected terrorists and those aiding them in areas such as Pakistan fall under the umbrella of what the US has been able to accomplish in our last 12 years during the Global War on Terror.

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 function of the military forces for the United States has had no choice but to evolve as wars wax and wane. As the rise of militant terrorist groups became a threat to the United States and its allies, the armed forces of the United States were deployed by the President to countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. Instability in these countries threatened bordering allies, and after September 11, 2001, the threat was brought to U.S. soil. Each president from Clinton to Obama has had to shape the policy of how the armed forces fit into civil-military policies abroad and overseas. In a war time environment, such as Iraq, the purpose of how the military should be deployed is easier to clearly state. But in times when there is no imminent threat, it is much more difficult to transition

This paper discusses the War Powers Act/Resolution of 1973. Though this resolution was passed by Congress to give it more say in declaration of war and the deployment of American troops to foreign countries promising hostilities, this aim has hardly been achieved. The War Powers Act remains as one of the most contentious legal provisions in the American constitution and has been the subject of several debates and interpretations. More often than not, one finds American soldiers actually engaged in hostilities in foreign lands without the explicit or even implied support of the US Congress. This paper discusses why this is so and hypothesizes that realpolitik has significantly contributed to the practical ineffectiveness of the War Powers Act. Structurally, this paper will first proceed to present a brief history of the War Powers Act and its intended purpose. Afterwards, the linkage between realpolitik and the Act will be discussed.

Affirming the notion that the elected leader of the United States is privileged following inauguration the title of also being the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he or she retains the option to utilize the privilege if and when a situation of confounding merit is introduced. During times in which the safety of the national public-home or abroad- is threatened, I believe that the president is entitled, with clarified ramifications of course, to exercise his or her capacity of powers within the United States Armed Forces as a means of temporary resolution to matters regarding support immediate or imminent threat. Although on recent accounts the elicited power of utilizing force has come into conflict with constitutional stipulations

Why would not qualified military leaders bring a sober voice about the risks of using military power? In the case where it cannot be avoided, plan a winning strategy that mitigates the risk to our warriors, and a win for the USA?

Within days of Iraqi forces invading Kuwait in 1990, President Bush publicly backed the United Nations’ (UN) stance on the incursion with four national strategic objectives and determined that, ‘if invited, US forces would be deployed to deter further Iraqi attacks, defend Saudi Arabia and enforce UN resolutions.’ From the national strategic objectives, the military end-state is deduced. The military end-state is a conceptual element of operational design which describes the conditions that forces must achieve to attain strategic objectives/ hand over main effort responsibilities. The military end-state does not necessarily indicate the end of a military activities to attain national objectives. While one specific national objective would not

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.

Thesis Statement: “Citizens of this country should value the national security more than their privacy since it is concerned with a much larger group of people in order to protect our country from invaders, to maintain the survival of our country and to prevent airing of criticism of government.”