Upton's Military Reforms

The United States Army is a complex organization made up of several commands and managed by different command levels. The U.S. Army is an organization different from that of a business in many unique ways. Specific examples of these differences include: financial reporting, disciplinary review procedures, and tactical operations. Although different in many ways, the Army shares many similar characteristics of a normal profit business. Army personnel are managed by supervisors arranged in a command structure similar to that of a business hierarchy. The Army will also encounter internal and external factors that could impede or enhance operations. As such, planning, organizing, leading, and controlling must be used by managers appropriately

A big problem in American army was that soldiers was taking care for their own interests and not for the interest their fellow soldiers. An example of this was when Martin badly injured his foot and when he went to see surgeon he was told to wait for the surgeon's game was not to be interrupted by “minor affairs”.Martin also explained his encounter with a “wounded captain” who “begged his sergeant to help him off the field”and how the captain was disregarded until Martin stepped in to help. This situation shows that instead than risking their lives for each other ,they prefer to allow their fellow colleges to die than spend extra energy in saving them. A reason for this probably was the motive for entering the army. Most of the soldiers enlisted in the army because of the money. Problems in the relations had not only soldier to soldier but also soldier to officers. Martin stated this in the comment which an officer gave him about sick soldier:”If he dies the country will be rid of someone who can do it no good.”This comment showed us that the officer did not have any respect for the sick soldier.

Stewardship of the Army Profession is the last of the Five Essential Characteristics of the Army Profession, but in terms of importance, it is just as, if not more important than the other four. The United States Army’s ADRP-1, or Army Doctrinal Reference Publication 1, even defines stewardship as “the responsibility of Army professionals to ensure the profession maintains its five essential characteristics now and into the future”. Such importance is placed on this characteristic because Stewardship of the Army Profession is the one that ensures the other four are maintained. I sought out the definition of stewardship because despite having spent almost three and a half years and West Point, I was not entirely sure what the doctrine behind Stewardship was. In doing this, I felt like I was better prepared for both this paper and ensuring that the corrections I made were stewarding the profession. With this newly acquired knowledge, I set out to make my corrections.

Throughout military history, there have been many leaders that can be considered either visionary or ethical. This paper will discuss how BG Robin Olds was a visionary leader, but not a very ethical leader. From the beginning of his career, he was a visionary in aerial combat tactics and a true believer of leading from the front. His vision of aerial combat was beyond his years, but often fell upon deaf ears due to his flamboyant nature. He never hesitated to say exactly what was on his mind, which is why his actions could be considered unethical. But, his men loved him, and would follow him to hell and back. First, this paper will discuss BG Olds’ visionary leadership abilities he displayed the Viet Nam

The United States entered World War Two in late 1941, and right away they were thrown into a conflict that involved making important decisions that would affect generations of people, in the United States and elsewhere, for years to come. A most notable decision by the Allies, namely the United States and Great Britain, was the combining of the American and British military chiefs of staff. This joint collaboration was appropriately titled the “Combined Chiefs of Staff”. They worked together as one body, and made war planning decisions and strategized together. This type of alliance was an innovation in war planning for the time, and the decisions made collaboratively by the two powers contributed greatly to the Allied victory in 1945. The relationships involved and the disputes that came up are worth noting, specifically the question of the Allies opening up a second front in the west, particularly titled “Operation Sledgehammer”. The relationship between President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, as well as General George Marshall of the United States and General Sir Alan Brooke of Great Britain were the main actors involved in this undertaking, and they will be the main individuals discussed and analyzed for the purposes of this paper. Ultimately Operation Sledgehammer was delayed and no action was taken upon it. Even though it caused rifts between the USSR, for reasons that will be explained, and the Allies far into the future, in retrospect they may have been

Dr. Williamson Murray once declared a want to develop his Expeditionary Warfare School (EWS) seminar students into hand grenades. His comments were, of course, figurative, but Murray communicated a vision: his company grade students would read more deeply, think more critically, write with greater effect, and ultimately be more willing to challenge conventional wisdom than their peers. Murray, with EWS, engineered the course, from initial selection through the final seminars, to meet his goal of a competent, well-armed officer prepared to make and recommend just decisions grounded in history.

In 2012, General Dempsey states “Mission Command is fundamentally a learned behavior to be imprinted into the DNA of a profession of arms.” The way Mission Command has evolved through the past years is indicative to the US Military adjusting to a new threat. The concept of Mission Command is not new, what is important is how General Dempsey states “Education in the fundamental principles of mission command must begin at the start of service and be progressively more challenging..” The General emphasizes the need for education at the start of the individual’s service. Additionally, this highlights the United States Army’s doctrinal adjustment to the new threat. During the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US faced an enemy whose creativity and adaptability are two of its greatest assets. The fast-paced situation changes in both of those AOs required tactical level leadership maintain the autonomy to “exercise disciplined initiative.” This type of initiative historically leads to mission success, specifically in fast-paced situations where a key to success is forcing the enemy to react.

The Army’s success in battles becomes a product of its readiness, training, and equipment and of course its size. In the American history, the success of the first battles was a product of combination of all the mentioned factors and especially reduction of the military numbers. Due to the public’s will and pressure for downsizing the force after conflicts and increasing the number right before the following conflicts, the will to repair the damage already done was almost obsolete. In his article, Dunn (2013) mentions, “public reaction to the US first battles served as a catalyst for repairing the state of the Army”. The downsizing routine followed after Cold War period, in order to match the proper rate of forces on the evolving and complicated environment.

The purpose of this paper is to address how I, SSG Schumacher, have identified Major Robert Rogers as a legacy leader and a leader of influence in my military career as a non-commissioned officer and member of the military intelligence community. This paper will cover three main topics in which I will first discuss a brief history of the life of Major Rogers. Then, his impact on the evolution of warfare and leadership attributes on the United States Army. Finally, I will discuss how his leadership attributes led to him making an impact on the military today and Soldiers such as myself.

Millett, Peter Maslowski, and William B. Feis describe the field of U.S military history. Millett is a research professor, an Ambrose professor of history and a director of the Eisenhower center at the University of New Orleans, and a professor Emeritus of Military History at the Ohio State University. Maslowski is professor Emeritus of History at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Feis is a professor of History at Buena Vista University of Storm Lake, Iowa. (Millett, A., Maslowski, P., & Feis, W. (2012).

There are roughly eight billion individuals on this planet and each one of them has the potential to change future of the human race. On November 11, 1885, in San Gabriel California a unique individual was born that would change the outcome of WWII. George S. Paton Jr. was this individual and he would be a key player in the allied victory over Germany in the Second World War. This victory allowed America to exert its rightful place as a global superpower. Patton not only assisted America in winning the war but set it up for further victory based in his involvement in the formation of the first armored division in the U.S. Army. His tactics were developed were deployed throughout the European theater. To fully grasp the impact that General Patton has had on America’s military and America’s global dominance, one must understand Patton’s character and knowledge, his military upbringing, as well as his conduct at home and on the battlefield. General Patton comes from a long line of successful military commanders and a royal lineage which aided in shaping Patton’s character.

In 1973, the Army (and the noncommissioned officer corps) was in turmoil. Of the post-Vietnam developments in American military policy, the most influential in shaping the Army was the advent of the Modern Volunteer Army. With the inception of the Noncommissioned Officer Candidate Course, many young sergeants were not the skilled trainers of the past and were only trained to perform a specific job; squad leaders in

Force management, or what is really otherwise known as planned comprehensive change, is in reality a complex and interwoven process. Though it was designed within the confines of a systemic approach referred to as the DOTMLPF (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership & Education, Personnel and Facilities), in reality it is meant to enable both dutiful and well-thought out change as well as faster, more urgent adjustments in accordance with the evolving nature of war and information gathering tactics. The Army, as one branch involved in this initiative, focuses most of its attention in this regard on the organizational sector because of the way it facilitates an adequate and democratic step-by-step system of review (Student Reader, F102:2). But the fact is that even this initiative remains multi-faceted and appears to be rather bureaucratic in nature (it has five phases, which seems antithetical to an urgent change process), which might not be surprising since implementing the type of changes that are demanded can have major implications of all sorts. Still, it does appear that this concentration is being well received and that it will eventually serve its goal even if it does not appear that way when detailed on a point by point basis.

Parts five and six bring together the personal and professional relationship between Marines themselves and the American public. These relationships, forged by the millions of men and women who have donned the Marine Corps uniform, are a result of training methods and careful selection. General Krulak gives the reader a taste of why Marines do what they have come to be known as America’s force in readiness. First to Fight has many good traits. The book, while easy to read and addictively interesting, never sugarcoats the intense conflicts between high level officials. General Krulak enhances the “official” record with personal accounts of events and people now legendary. His no-holds-barred approach to his writing makes General Krulak’s book both honest and educational. His explanations of the struggle to keep the Marine Corps alive and the early development of amphibious doctrine make First to Fight a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the modern Marine Corps. In parts of the book, General Krulak provides a mountain of detail. While these facts would be of great historical value for a reader who knows military structure and nomenclature, they tend to bog down the reader at points. The political volleys also tend to get tedious when the General describes the how the Marine Corps had to fight tooth and nail for institutional survival. These

As stewards of our profession, commanders ensure that military expertise continues to develop and be passed on to aspiring professionals through operational development. It is during this developmental phase that Professional Soldiers put their knowledge and skills to the test. Operational Army units certify and recertify their Professional Soldiers through repetitive and realistic training events including the Combat Life Saver Course, platoon live fires, and exercises at the National Training Center. In the course of these challenging and realistic experiences, the Army’s operational units develop Soldiers and leaders prepared to maintain high standards, discipline, and operational readiness. Operational development and adaptability will continue to drive changes in Army doctrine, organization, leadership, and education as we enter the post-war era. Without this kind of development, the Army could not maintain a well-disciplined professional fighting force.