The Values Of Deploying And The Benefits Of Membership

The past few months that I have spent in the JROTC program have instilled multiple army values in me through my experiences and allowed me to grow as a person. Several of the army values are as follows: loyalty, duty, respect, honor, integrity, and personal courage.

The Values identified, manifested and espoused by the US Army are: Loyalty, Duty Respect, Service &Stewardship, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage. These are defined by our US Army as:

Since 1950 European Union (EU) was created it has promoted peace, prosperity and values among the member nations and its neighbouring countries. EU’s influential tools, has helped transform many European states into functioning democracies and prosperous countries. EU’s membership has grown from 6 to 28 countries (Enlargement, 2014), satisfying a historic vow to integrate the continent bringing in most states of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) by peaceful ideals.EU has anticipated the enlargement as an extraordinary opportunity to endorse political strength and economic success in Europe. EU’s extension policy is open to any European state that fulfils the EU’s political and financial criteria for membership; still the political process of inclusion of new state requires a unanimous agreement from all the existing 28 member states. Europe is considered to be more flourishing and safer place due to the promotion of democracy, anti-corruption policy and the single market policy.

Duty is one of the values outlined the Army values. In my opinion it is one of the most important of all of them. It is very important but without the other values, Duty by itself cannot assist in accomplishing the mission. We still have the other values like leadership, respect, selfless service, honesty, integrity, and personal courage. These all set up the framework for us to be able to accomplish or duty as soldiers. All of them work hand in hand with each other. Duty is defined in Webster’s dictionary as, “obligatory tasks, conduct, service or functions that arise from ones position.” It is one of the primary values in the Army today. Duty is the reason while we get up every day and prepare to and defend the United States of America with

I am Joseph Maruska, I am currently a Major in the United States Air Force. This essay will introduce you to my personal command philosophy. It will also summarize and analyze a brief interview recently conducted with a current squadron commander using my own leadership philosophy as a guide. Throughout this essay I will draw upon my own personal experiences and thoughts, lessons discussed throughout the Leadership and Command Course, as well the discussion with a current squadron commander. Leadership and command styles come in many different forms and there is not necessarily a correct or incorrect way to lead depending on your organization or current turn of events. This essay is simply my thoughts after being in the Air Force for the last eleven years.

The defense industry is one of the largest recruiters of STEM graduates in the nation. Thousands of engineering students enter this industry and must justify the morality of their work. These engineers work on projects that affect themselves, the engineering profession, and the entire world population. This paper will look into some of the facts surrounding engineering in the defense industry, its intended and unintended consequences, and judge the work of these engineers by applying Egoism, Utilitarianism, and Kantian ethical theories.

The issue at hand is the ability for the Army to balance the need to remain globally responsive while balancing the distinct possibility the United States will face a substantial

The Army Values are an essential part of Army life. These values have been especially selected and crafted to carry out the intent of the Army. The meanings behind them are sometimes even more important than the words themselves. It is our duty as Soldiers to not only learn the Army values but also to understand the meaning behind them; because words without meaning are simply letters on a page. The concept behind the Army values can only be explained by exploring the reasoning they were selected and how they apply to the everyday life of a Soldier.

Configuration Management is a United States Department of Defense (DoD) product of the nuclear arms race of the 1950s. [16] During this time, developments were documented or not documented; therefore, the nuclear arms race did not lead to significant advancements in technology standards. [16] Items and protocols were duplicated which resulted in “high costs and mixed success” for the DoD. [16] In turn, the DoD mandated configuration management for the hardware in the military. [16] They issued “Bulletin Number 390 and 390A to the Army, Navy and Air Force and coined the term “engineering change proposal.” [16] Fast forward to today, configuration management is a common practice across the industry and the new standards are found in the NIST-series

Moe’s revised model uses Olson’s main features while using more realistic assumptions. One is that a member may believe their actions have a sense of purpose and can make a difference and that decisions made by group members are not only influenced by economic gain. For the formation of these groups, small groups still have an advantage over larger ones yet large groups are not as disadvantaged as Olson perceives them to be. This model states that even the smallest of members can act with purpose and leave whenever they choose to. Leaders must be cautious to their political preferences or risk losing members. This idea is very different from Olson’s original expectations. This causes large groups to be more representative because leaders have an incentive to take into consideration the preferences of more members. When leaders become successful in increasing efficacy and purposive values then members will make contributions that will help obtain group goals. This system corresponds with some of Olson’s expectations along with pluralist expectations as

Furthermore these democratic foundations were further “reinforced” with the conditionality’s of membership adopted at the Copenhagen Summit in June 1993, whereby democratic governance and human rights were included in its criteria for membership. Furthermore, the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 formally established a Common Foreign and Security Policy which included objectives of which included the development and consolidation of democracy. The EU as Lucarelli argues hence became a strong instrument for the promotion and development of democracy in Europe and but especially in post-communist ones. This Furthermore, the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 reaffirmed its strong democratic position through Article 6:

If both benefit the most in cooperating, as is the case in the prisoner’s dilemma, they will both cooperate, and peace will be maintained . This basic liberal assumption of the importance of individual gains is the main support for European integration. If all states cooperate in all arenas, leading to a collectively sovereign “Europe”, the individual gains of each state will be adequate enough to avoid conflict among themselves making it easier to approach the rest of the international system together peacefully.

For this sense when weaker states join organizations, great powers gain from interactions because they do not have common interest as those of weaker states. Such Realist thinking has occurred thousands of years ago. The Melian Dialogue supports the theory by summing up all of realism, stating “the strong will dictate the term of interaction between states”(Melian Dialogue). Liberals also benefit from international organizations as well. They believe that repeated interactions with other states will be an effective way to collaborate with them and prevent one state from cheating on the other. Transparency, information, and monitoring will provide states to strengthen “global economic ties”(Snyder.59).

This could be said to be one of the main attractions for becoming a Member State.

Recently, the World Bank characterized the EU as a “Convergence machine” based on successive enlargements that leads to significant upward convergence in wealth between poorer and richer member states (Gill, Raiser 2012). We should therefore not be astonished that EU membership remains attractive to nearly all non-EU states within Europe. On the one hand, it is difficult to deny that EU enlargement promises benefits for everyone involved. For example, it brings most notably economic benefits but also political and social benefits. On the other hand, the EU’s ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ approach unnecessarily chases member states (hereinafter PMs) with accepting either the costs of being an outsider, or the costs of modifying their norms and values to fulfill with the EU. Of course, such external pressure is not regretful in all cases such as when minorities are being mistreated. However, PMs