The Objectives Of The National Military Strategy Essay

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.

Since its birth on 14 June 1775-over a year before the Declaration of Independence-the United States Army has played a vital role in the growth and development of the American nation. It won the new Republic's independence in an arduous eight-year struggle against Great Britain, at times providing the lone symbol of nationhood around which patriots could rally. During the Civil War it preserved the Union through four years of biter conflict that turned brother against brother. It has repeatedly defended United States against external threats, from the "second war of independence" with Great Britain in 1812 through the crusades that finally rid the world of the specters of Nazi totalitarianism,

Carl von Clausewitz once said: “No one starts a war—or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so—without first being clear in is mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.” One hundred and forty years later Dr. Fred Charles Iklé, a noted sociologist and expert defense strategist, authored Every War Must End where he shares his insights on the difficult process which wars have been brought to a “close” and how those lessons learned from the past failures to duly end a war have influenced the strategies of the future war efforts. In Dr. Iklé’s book, he states: “fighting often continues long past the point where a ‘rational’ calculation would indicate that the war should be ended—ended, perhaps, even at the

The concept of war as a static and unchanging occurrence is an outdated and dangerous miscalculation. More accurately, war is a fluidic, evolving and shifting phenomenon constantly reinventing itself, rendering stagnant, inflexible principles potentially disastrous. Consequently, as students of war and future players in this transforming theatre, the study of eras of significant development is an extremely relevant pursuit. Recognizing the need for adaptation and the creation of doctrine is now a prerequisite for any effective modern commander. War is unpredictable in nature and particularly so in current theatres of operation, in which change is rapid

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.

During this last half of the twentieth century the US military was under siege from all sides, internal and external. The root cause of this situation can be traced back to Vietnam and the governments lack of true commitment. What resulted was the near destruction of the US military. The military managed to come out in the end to become perhaps the best military in the world by completely reevaluating itself and reorganizing almost every aspect . The primary focus will be on the reorganization of the Army and Air force, and how they were affected by the disaster of Vietnam. The US military managed to come out one top through completely reorganizing the way the military works and thinks. Focusing

Early Americans understood the necessity of powerful armed forces and citizen volunteers in times of conflict. As the United States became a developed country, it also became apparent that a strong military force was necessary for global trade and strategic positioning for the prevention and possible participation in war. Strengthening America’s military resulted in the United States becoming and remaining a major world power.

The Unites States Air Force is a huge organization that employs a huge workforce annually who works as its security forces. The organization's mission is to fly, fight, and win all battles in the air, cyberspace, and air. As a huge organization, it acts as one of the most attractive options for individuals who are seriously considering a career with the security forces. However, such individuals should conduct an adequate research before choosing to seek for job opportunities with the organization. This is largely because individual responsibilities in the United States Air Force contain various risks that are associated with different jobs.

The United states Military is made up of Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard branches, however the Army is the only branch that has ever issued a conscription or draft and has done so many times during its wars. The Draft was abolished in 1973 in favor of an all volunteer army, but men of draft age still to this day have to register to the Selective Service System so a draft can be readily applied if needed. The draft system recruits and places men into the military during a time of need for soldiers. During the Vietnam War and Cold War many people found the draft controversial and unfair, and chose to protest or completely disobey the draft system. Although the Vietnam War draft was thought by many Americans to be an

Thousands of kids roam a college campus - and it only takes one. No amount of preparation, staff training, or school-wide drills can prepare the university for something so terrible. This tragedy will forever change the way students and teachers operate the school. One man. One gun. And the sad part is that all of this can all be averted. For this reason, the law should consent to “licensed concealed carry” (carrying a weapon with a license) on campus. If students were allowed to defend themselves with their own weapons, they would. Teachers and students should be permitted to carry firearms onto the campus because the rule that bans weapons will not stop a shooter, it will greatly increase a person’s self–defense, and it can stop

The United States Army exists to serve the American people, protect vital national interests and fulfill national military responsibilities. The Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders (Diversity Roadmap, 2010). In order for the Army to continue to achieve their mission in their all-volunteer force, they must continue to recruit from a pool of diverse and talented individuals that the United States has to offer, so that we can maintain our competitive advantage against our enemies. The strength to accomplish the Army’s mission rest solely on their Soldiers.

There are no universal theories to explain the true nature and character of war, and any war theories are not a fact or absolute truth. All strategic principles are dynamic and contextual, so “every age had its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” The battlefield environment of the 21st century will be the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, and nature of war will be completely different because of the Revolution in Military Affairs. Highly advance communication and information technologies, a dramatic increase in computing capabilities, developed of precision munitions, dominant air and space power ‘war could be waged by the projection of

The defense model "Military" is based on the assumption that the previous model does not hold, along with the ability and the means to deal with the threat, which is why their actors should be seen as fighters. This is because they have targeted, indiscriminately, the civilian population and so these are response tools appropriate to an armed conflict. Paradoxically, this leads to the dilemma covering the "counterterrorism equation". This is one in which, in addition to the increase in offensive actions, actions aimed at reducing the capacity of a group or organization will match an increase in their levels of support, adhesion, and motivation. A counterterrorism strategy must thereby seek a balance between the means for the annular operating capacity of an

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

Giulio Douhet, in his seminal treatise on air power titled The Command of the Air, argued, “A man who wants to make a good instrument must first have a precise understanding of what the instrument is to be used for; and he who intends to build a good instrument of war must first ask himself what the next war will be like.” The United States (US) military establishment has been asking itself this exact question for hundreds of years, in an attempt to be better postured for the future. From the Civil War, through the American Indian Wars, and up until World War II (WWII) the American military’s way of war consisted of fighting traditional, or conventional, wars focused on total annihilation of an enemy. Since that time, there has been a gradual shift from the traditional framework towards one that can properly address non-traditional, or irregular wars. While the US maintains a capability to conduct conventional warfare, the preponderance of operations where the US military has been engaged since WWII have been irregular wars. Therefore, this question articulated by Douhet, as to understanding the character of the next war in order to properly plan, train, and equip, is certainly germane to the current discussion of regular war versus irregular war. In today’s fiscally constrained environment, the questions remains, which will dominate the future and therefore, garner further funding and priority. Based on the current threats and the US role as a superpower, the US