The Most Important Lessons For Military Leaders Essay

This platoon is a family and as a family we should work as such no questions asked when something needs to be completed as an nco I need to complete the mission first at all times to get it accomplished in a timely manner and ensure that it is completed to standard from LT to pvt everyone should police themselves to accomplice the task at hand if ssg parou needs something completed by Thursday it is because someone above him needs it as well and we should never put our team member or leadership in a position where they are embarrassed or talked down to because an nco couldn’t complete their tack at hand and as an nco there should be no excuse to why you can complete a simple task that is why I am an nco to lead by example.

My leadership philosophy revolves entirely around the Army Values. In every action I take as a leader, I assess whether or not it lines up with the Army Values and the potential impacts. I have had a variety of leadership assignments during my career, all requiring a different leadership approach, spanning from team leader through platoon sergeant. My conflict resolution skills have greatly evolved through my twelve years in the Army, from rudimentary conversations to in depth problem solving. My professional development has had a profound effect on my leadership abilities, from NCOPD’s to mentorship from senior non-commissioned officers (NCO’s).

There are a number of significant difficulties for today’s military - the Global War on Terrorism or what has recently been termed the “Long War;” weapon system acquisitions and personnel draw downs. The focus of this paper is on one strategic component of the military quest—Leadership. More specifically, it will center on servant leadership and its impact on the military’s vision.

Security is based on military strength. The chief purposes of the nation’s foreign policy are protection of America’s security in an often hostile world. Today, American security policy is worried not only with the procedures of the other nations such as Nazi Germany 1940, soviet Russia 1980; but also with activities of terrorist groups and other hostile non-state actors. To defend the nation and to achieve this goal, united state has built a huge military

Born November 11, 1885 in San Gabriel, California, General George Smith Patton, Jr. was one of the most complicated, yet greatest leaders in military history. On June 11, 1909, he attended the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) for a year and then to the United States Military Academy at West Point where he commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the 15th cavalry Regiment. Growing up, Patton’s ultimate life goal was to become a hero and a successful leader. In Robert B. Williamson’s book, “General Patton’s Principles for Life & Leadership”, the author takes a personal account of Patton’s principles which he lived and fought for. These main principles consisted of the following: Leadership,

This 2015 National Military Strategy addresses the need to counter revisionist states that are challenging international norms as well as violent extremist organizations (VEOs) that are undermining transregional security. We are working with allies and partners to deter, deny, and – when necessary – defeat potential state adversaries. Concurrently, we are leading multiple coalition efforts to disrupt, degrade, and defeat VEOs. Central to these efforts is strengthening our global network of allies and partners. This integrated strategy requires us to conduct synchronized operations around the globe, implement institutional reforms at home, and sustain the capabilities, capacity, and readiness

For the Pentagon one of its top priorities is protecting the citizens and shores of the United States of America. In order to protect its borders, the Pentagon needs a National Security strategy that outlines how the US will protect its interests and allies while providing stability to certain regions of the world and how to prevent terror from reaching its shores. One national security expert, Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, wrote a book called The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century. His book describes his theory that he believes the US should follow to protect itself and its interests abroad, how the theory applies to future operational environments, and challenges, opportunities and threats within the theory.

The existing geopolitical world environment continually tests current United States National Security Strategy and exposed several flaws. The current grand strategy, formulated piecemeal following U.S. victory in World War II, seeks to both retain American hegemony and act as global champion for the ideals of liberal democracy. Ultimately continued exercise of this strategy has exposed the ever increasing commitment to capability delta and challenges the existing ends, ways, and means methodology. Russia’s recent exercise of its expeditionary capacity in Syria as well as China’s expansion and annexation of islands in the South China Sea only serve as reminders to U.S. strategic limitations. Patrick Porter rightly posits that the U.S. is at

The National Security Strategy (NSS) document represents a broad collection of different sensibilities and offers a tentative synthesis of different if not contradictory beliefs of American officials inside the administration. The document serves to set administration priorities inside the government and communicate them to Congress, the American people and the world. It also is intended as a framework for strategy documents produced by other parts of the government, including the Pentagon's national defense strategy. The NSS is not strictly a formal exercise; in practice it serves as a reference and justification for actual policy choices. In the coming months, the current administration will frequently quote this document to present and justify its

The 2015 National Military Strategy identifies as its main objectives the deter, deny, and defeat state adversaries, the disrupt, degrade and defeat violent extremist organizations and finally the strengthen our global network of allies and partners., The history book of continuum of conflict demonstrates lessons learned that military leaders should consider in achieving these objectives. Among them the need to be empathizing with your enemy is a great lesson regarding the deterrence especially when you discover that “those with power to start a war frequently have lack of power to stop it.” Furthermore, if deterrence fails at any time the escalation of war will suffice to end the war and demonstrates determination, capability and will to end the fighting quickly Moreover, in the irregular warfare strategic assessment should be properly included in the planning process because they can inform a commander not only of a campaigns progress but also of what outcomes can reasonably be expected giving emphasis to the exit plan within a time frame allotted. Finally, the need of a broad consensus in jus ad bellum principles of war theory will strengthen the global network of cooperation with allies and partners. This is of main importance especially today in order to face the dynamic threats of the most unpredictable global security environment.

The United States 2011 National Military Strategy lists four Military Objectives to support the National Security Strategy. Two of objectives are first, countering violent extremism, and second, deterring and defeating aggression. As late as 2008, the United States had yet to wrap its arms around the theory of strategic deterrence as it relates to nonstate actors

What is the nature of military power and how should it be used to serve national interests? These fundamental questions form the foundation of military strategy. Various answers developed by civilian and military theorists over the past century all center on the idea of controlling conflict by rationally applying military power to achieve a desirable outcome. However, as economic, social, and political contexts evolve, they redefine ideas about power, its utility, and its application. As a result of this reciprocal relationship, theories of strategy, itself an amorphous concept, change. Corbett’s Some Principle of Maritime Strategy, Slessor’s Air Power and Armies, Wylie’s Military Strategy: A General Theory of Power Control, and

When considering how to adapt a 20th century strategy to the needs of the contemporary world, the U.S. is challenged by the products of its own successes. America supports and promotes an engine of revolutionary change in world affairs. However, the economic and technological progress that has so greatly benefitted our nation also introduces new and complicating factors into world politics. The three greatest difficulties the U.S. will face in the next irregular conflict involving our allies or a coalition are global economic stability and security,

Terrorism is one the most serious hazards to U.S. national interests. Policy makers have used an array of options over the past thirty years to counter terrorism. Counter tactics like strategic planning both political and diplomatic, economic sanctions, and Local law enforcement efforts. None of the tactics have been more controversial than the use of military force. In Large part this is due to that potential threat of casualties of our U. S service men and women, possible deaths of innocent civilians and other subsidiary damage. It is in the U.S military’s scope to defend our country against all enemies foreign and domestic. Even though here may be other ways to prevent terrorism, military force is the most effective.

The US military continually downsized the US Army after the Desert Storm, reducing its decisive capabilities that might be needed in the future large-scale operational war. Despite the changes that rapid globalization brought on the international scene, states still remain dominant actors in the international system. States still maintain their capabilities to harness power and focus human endeavors, and some of them will act and try to revise current international order thus threatening US national security interests. The