Transformer Metaphor

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.

The film delves into some of the difficult options leaders have to choose from in cases involving nuclear weapons. Nuclear conflicts are extraordinarily complex, with many potential unpredictable outcomes. After General Ripper directs his plane to bomb the enemy, he describes his thought process to one of his officers, “...when [the president’s advisors] realize there is no possibility in recalling the wing there will be only one course of action: open, total commitment”. Here, a “total commitment” consists of the U.S. supporting General Ripper’s plan by utilizing their full arsenal of nuclear weapons to attack Russia. General “Buck” Turgidson, one of the President’s top advisors, echoes this exact idea in the war room and proposes to the U.S. President a full commitment. This was a possible solution that could have neutralized all of Russia in one wave of nuclear missiles; however, this strategy is frowned upon and dismissed by the President as it would reflect poorly on the U.S.’ diplomatic reputation in the long-run.

Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century written by Peter Warren Singer. In his book, Mr. Singer explores and supports his theory of how technology is quickly and decisively changing the way the U.S. fights wars. This book was written in 2009 and the author provides historical data up to 2009 on how the military relies on technology in the battlefield. Mr. Singer’s credentials include a Ph.D. in Government from Harvard and a BA from the Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton2. He has worked with numerous U.S. government agencies as advisor and continues to provide his services in that capacity. He has published books which relate to the military such as Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the

A) The title of the book is The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War and the author is Andrew Bacevich. The book was published in New York, New York by the publisher Oxford University Press in the year 2005. It is the first edition and contains 270 pages.

In the 1940’s a series of propaganda films titled Why We Fight were produced for the purpose of defining the enemies of World War 2 to justify the necessity of America’s involvement in war. Hitler needed to be defeated, Nazism had to be destroyed, and tyranny had to be stopped for the sake of the American way of life by any means necessary. How could society argue against America’s role in the world war when freedom was being threatened? As Martin Luther King Jr. said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to everywhere.” No questions asked, Americans mobilized in the name of liberty and freedom. However the 2005 documentary film Why We Fight directed by Eugene Jarecki is not a sequel or war propaganda. The film informs the audience and questions America 's military industrial complex that has since dictated policy since the victory of World War 2. With the help of narration, soundbites, and credible speakers Jarecki shines light on the pernicious impact of the armed industry on our government, army, and citizens.

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.

In a 2015 article, “Is U.S. military becoming outdated?” written by Stuart Bradin, Keenan Yoho, and Meaghan Keeler-Pettigrew, the authors argued that despite the U.S. military maintaining a position of global dominance “without peer” during conventional operations, it is not the ideal force against current and future threats. The authors claim that there are several negative factors arising due to the past sixteen years of war against several state and non-state elements, inferior cultural differences of government bureaucracy compared to commercial firms, and a misallocation of defense spending that leaves the US military waging war inefficiently while simultaneously losing technological dominance against current and future threats.

Although severe consequences come with the decision of war with Iraq, most blinded United States of America citizens are still yet persuaded to support such a war. The Bush Administration has covered their schemes of war with lies to gain support. While weapons of mass destruction is supposedly the reason why the United States launched military action to begin with, all the clearly ignored consequences will haunt their final decision of war, and will remind them how the war is not and never was justified. Whither the war is for the protection of the United States and their alliances, or for oil production and the spread of democracy, the United States is only intensifying the aggression of the situation.

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

“You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad.”- General James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis. General James Mattis is a retired United States Marine Corps general. General Mattis is known for his multiple forms of wartime experience as well as his brutally honest quotes about both fighting and the Marines. Even though some may seem General Mattis as an individual solely focused on violence, he is really a man of strong morals. However as times change the generations of people which live through the decades begin to conform to the ever changing environment. Once you begin to compare generals during early American wars to generals of present wars one can begin to see the effects

With Trump’s election this year, his rhetoric of “Making America Great Again” and therefore revitalizing our military will soon become a reality. Trump has formally requested a reappropriation of funds; around $54 Billion, towards the US military. Part of Trump’s campaign promises had to do with making the military more robust; ensuring America’s title of militarily strongest in the world. In order to achieve this goal. Trump’s federal government has the option of many different aspects of the military to focus on. Of these, funding weapons of mass destruction, cyber security, and further military research and development prove themselves as most relevant in the contemporary military.

The preference for “clarity over nuance” which means American people prefer simplicity over complexity when American people access significant declarations and military activities. American people vote their presidents so that American people like politicians announce the statement with the easily accessible idea, even though politicians lie to them, or the statement is wrong. Politicians deceive American people with the easily accessible idea that “...American people in their pursuit of happiness...” (38) according to Andrew J Bacevich’s “The Real World War IV”. Politicians simply state its purpose that the elimination of terror instead of the founding purpose that grab the accessible oil in the Middle East because American people prefer to hear the statement of simply understanding from their politicians who they vote. Also, American people prefer to see a simplicity in the military school in order to pursue their happiness. However, in “The Naked Citadel”, Susan Faludi exposed that there was no admission for women, sex-discrimination, and violence, and etc. many bad news in the military school. But the ugly and relentlessly truth deeply hurt American people’s feeling. Even if the reality is around American people, and we are familiar with it, the reality is too horrible to accept it. Same as soldiers, Tim O’Brien attempts to emphasize the war story is all about human’s love and memory, it is not about war in the “How to Tell a True War Story”. He is trying to explain that

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.

Perhaps there 's no getting away from our awesome political gap, a perpetual conflict of armed forces, and any endeavors to change the guidelines of engagement are purposeless. Alternately perhaps the trivialization of governmental issues has achieved a final turning point, so that the vast majority consider it to be only one more preoccupation, a game, with legislators our paunch-bellied combatants and the individuals who try to focus just fans on the sidelines: We paint our confronts red or

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