U.s. Military Overseas Operations

Balancing the role of the Professional Leader has been an ongoing issue for the Army since the latter decades of the 19th century when the U.S. Army was professionalized. The Army has struggled with the matter of balancing a force as massive as the Army. When out of balance the Army does not have the capability to send Soldiers where they are needed. During the Second War in Iraq it was obvious that the Army was not upholding this balance, junior leaders in the Army were fighting against a counterinsurgency campaign that they were ill prepared to handle due to a lack of necessary experience and equipment.

“The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.” This quote is profound in it’s own right but does it portray an author who is ethical and visionary? Could a man become a four-star general, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Secretary of State without holding these principles near and using them as a guide? As we explore Colin Powell’s legacy, we’ll find out.

“Yesterday, Dec. 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.” -Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The protection of citizens’ lives, foreign or domestic, is a critical necessity. As a result, the military is the most important organization in a country. In America, for instance, $598 billion is spent each year on the military (“Federal”). Because this is such an expensive, important, and dangerous topic, it is often debated. One of the most common arguments is whether or not America’s military presence is necessary overseas. Due to its foreign benefits, positive domestic effects, and overall creation of World Peace, the negative side of the argument is outweighed. America’s military presence in foreign countries is necessary.

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?

Military leaders have a different task than their civilian counterparts do, since the civilian counterparts are not sending their subordinates into danger, with the possibility of never coming home.

In discussion forum 9, leaders are challenged through situations of crisis and are given ways to confront those challenges which allows them to overcome setbacks and face adversity. In the book “Resilient Leaders”, written by Major General Robert Dees, he provides leaders with his personal experiences of the battlefront and home front and what he had to do in order to cope as well as overcome each situation he was placed in. Major General Dees discusses his foundational ideas on leadership in Chapters one and two. The three concepts that our group decided on are Selfless Service, Character and Risk Management.

For the last decade, the Army has been actively engaged in the War on Terror. Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) began on October 7, 2001 with allied air strikes on Taliban and Al Quada targets in Afghanistan. Even though United States President Barrack Obama announced the drawdown of Armed Forces in Afghanistan by the end of 2016, OEF would have lasted 15 years, becoming the Army’s longest war in the United States history (Taylor, 2014). On the other hand, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) lasted approximately 105 months, beginning in March 2003 and lasted until December 2011 with the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq (Schifrin, 2011). Between OEF and OIF, over 2 million American Military personnel have deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan or both

Counterintelligence (CI) involves actions aimed at protecting the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage from penetration and disruption by hostile nations or their intelligence services (Lowenthal, 2014). Three main components of Counterintelligence include collection, defensive and offensive. Collection is ability to gather intelligence information about rivalry capabilities against own nation; defensive part of CI involve measures to prevent and thwarting other nations attempts to penetration into own nations intelligence system; while offensive deal with running double agents to penetrate, manipulate, exploit, and control targeted adversaries. CI is said to be the most essential aspect of the intelligence disciplines, in the sense that collecting vast quantities of secret information and produce excellent analysis of the intelligence, but ineffective counterintelligence measures may diminish confidence the final results (Van Cleave, 2013). According to Federal Bureau of Investigation (2011) “Significant advances have been made in clarifying and rectifying intelligence gaps and requirements through the formation of liaison and working relationships with other U.S. intelligence community agencies, foreign partners, the private sector, and academia”. For instance, since 2001, FBI CI program has resulted to total arrests of 249, of which 46 of them were linked to espionage. Counterintelligence (CI)

Leadership is crucial part of today’s army and leaders play a huge role in the accomplishment of the mission. I believe this is true, because leaders are the guys who are in close contact with the younger soldiers. They are the ones who counsel the soldiers and make them better and make a plan for that soldier to improve and become a better soldier. Leaders play a major role in the accomplishment of the mission, because officers and higher leaders cannot be everywhere at once, so they need a person they can trust to lead the charge and tackle the mission the right way

By volunteering to fight in the greatest military in the world, we as leaders, have made the conscience decision to help build a unified ground force that is capable of working

     Another aspect that Leonard Wong touched on was that because our country is in war this is the reason why so much adaptive leadership is being produced. The war in Iraq is very complex and therefore requires leaders to step out of the box and make decisions on the fly. While in garrison leaders are in a sense hindered due to complex issues such as personnel, logistics, or training exercises. All these things are very necessary and help prepare the U.S. Army for situations they find themselves in over in Iraq. However, just like basketball or any other sport some might say “practice makes perfect” but it is argued that true experience comes during game time. When situations are not simulated and it requires you to think on the fly and adjust to any imperfections you might find in your team. This is the same case for post war Iraq. We are putting leaders in leadership positions and developing the skills they have been taught and trained on constantly day after day in garrison.

In 2012, Barack Obama declared, “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did. I promised to refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked the U.S. on 9/11. We have. We’ve blunted the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and in 2014, our longest war will be over. A new tower rises above the New York skyline, al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama bin Laden is dead” (“Remarks”). Flashback to about twenty-two years ago when very few people had heard of the Taliban. In the early 1990’s, after the war between the Afghanistan people and the Soviet Union ended, Afghanistan was left in a state of economic destruction, with over one million people dead. Afghanistan was a country in distress looking everywhere for answers; one group rose to the meet the needs of the people, and that group was the Taliban. The Taliban rule in Afghanistan from 1996-2001 was detrimental overseas and at home.

But terrorism can be anywhere at anytime. the Inter Services Intelligence of Pakistan supported islamic

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