The National Security Strategy considers the enduring US national interests as “the security of the US, its citizens, and US allies and partners; a strong, innovative and growing US economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity; respect for universal values at home and around the world; an international order advanced by US leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.” The Defense Strategic Guidance, published in 2012, directs that DOD develop smaller, less-cost, creative ways to achieve national security by increasing advisory roles, rotational presence, and exercises. Complimenting both, the Quadrennial Defense Review, published in 2010, set two overarching objectives: rebalance of US forces to meet current and future wars; and refine processes in order to support the US armed forces, buy only weapons that are necessary, and ensure responsible use of money. Finally, the National Military Strategy, published in 2011, explicitly states, “Let us not forget, the Nation remains at war abroad to defend against and defeat threats to our homeland.” In each of these documents, echoes of US lessons learned from the last 13 years of irregular warfare appear. This essay will discuss the current US military approach to the irregular challenges, the irregular challenges that the US most likely will face in the near term, and offer arguments of whether the US government and military focus is on the most important threats with the right mix of capabilities. Current and near-term irregular challenges facing the US military requires creative approaches that maximizes people, resources, and capabilities. The current US militar... ... middle of paper ... ...cute an irregular challenge operation and simultaneously faced a larger scale conventional operation, the US assumes a huge risk. Additionally, other core facets (homeland defense, defense of the commons, etc.) would suffer. This essay discussed the current US military approach to the irregular challenges, the irregular challenges that the US most likely will face in the near term, and offered arguments of whether the US government and military focus is on the most important threats with the right mix of capabilities. Only time will tell if the policies set forth in the 2010 National Security Strategy, 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, and 2011 National Military Strategy hit the mark. Current and near-term irregular challenges facing the US military requires creative approaches that maximizes people, resources, and capabilities.
When understanding the types Guerilla warfare tactics dates back to the earliest recorded history and continues today, as it will in the future. A formidable strategy used against the military by the Native Americans to preserve their way of life. After the Civil War in 1865, U.S. settlements exceeded ...
Steven Hook and John Spanier's 2012 book titled “American foreign policy since WWII" serves as one of the most important texts that can be used in understanding the underlying complexities on American foreign policies. Like the first readings that are analyzed in class (American Diplomacy by George Kennan and Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis), this text also brings history into a more understandable context. Aside from being informative and concise in its historical approach, Hook and Spanier also critiques the several flaws and perspectives that occurred in the American foreign policy history since World War II.
One con would be the causalities the United States could have. Many men will be wounded or killed in battle. Men also could d...
The Allied forces did not have the resources to carry out a strike. The Allies, especially the Air Force, were heavily engaged in actions elsewhere; any non-military mission could have possibly cost the Allies the winning of the war, and would have, at th...
... of Staff, Joint Operations, Joint Publication 3-0 (Washington, DC: U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 11 August 2011),III-10
American policy was conflicted on multiple fronts. There was a high-perceived threat, but the means devised to cope with it fell short o...
Leaders today need to have an appreciation for the operation process, understand a situation, envision a desired future, and to lay out an approach that will achieve that future (Flynn & Schrankel, 2013). Plans need to be created that can be modified to changes in any factors considered. However, plans should not be dependent on specific information being precise or that require things to go exactly according to schedule. Instead, the staff NCO should be flexible where they can and always be prepared for the unexpected. Today’s military members are fighting an unconventional war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The enemy constantly changes their tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP’s) to counter the United States technological advances, making planning very difficult for leaders. There are multiple tools at a staff NCO’s disposal to try to anticipate an outcome of a current operation, but also assist with the development of concepts in follow-on missions. The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is just one tool a staff NCO can utilize. In order to stay ahead of the enemy, create effective plans and orders, it is critical for a staff NCO to assist the commander, and understand that the MDMP and planning are essential in defeating the enemy and conserving the fighting force.
Armed with numerous studies, and intensive public hearings, Congress mandated far-reaching changes in DOD organization and responsibilities in the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. This landmark legislation significantly expanded the authority and responsibility of the chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff. Included in this expanded authority and responsibility was the requirement for the chairman to develop a doctrine for the joint employment of armed forces. As operations Urgent Fury, Just Cause, and Desert Storm have vividly demonstrated, the realities of armed conflict in today's world make the integration of individual service capabilities a matter of success or failure, life or death. Furthermore, the operation Desert One demonstrated the need for a strengthened Joint Warfare Doctrine and the consequent change in Joint Warfare Employment. It is plain to see the benefits of having the greatest navy integrated with the world's greatest army and air force. However, even in the wake of a relatively successful joint operation in the Middle East (Desert Storm), certain weaknesses are evident in the current joint employment tactics and/or capabilities. By analyzing past operations such as Urgent Fury and Desert Storm, we are able to see sufficient evidence that the Joint Warfare Concept can be disastrous in one instance and virtually flawless in another.
Homeland security is the way Americans put forth the effort to ensure the homeland is safe, secure, and stands firm against terrorist acts and other hazard that could put the health and welfare of the American people. The mission of the Homeland Security is to prevent terrorism, secure and protect our open borders, uphold all immigration laws, safeguard and secure cyberspace, and be content and resilient when it pertains to disasters.
...he immediate security of uninvolved countries thus far. The concern here is, even if the attempt to get aid, in the form of supplies, food and medicine to the least morally offensive group, is not futile, that the act of providing aid to the rebel forces may directly threaten the financial and physical security and safety of the United States directly, which must be avoided.
Initially, the US had planned to invade Japan in what was to be known as Operation Downfall. America would have provided most of the forces for the operation. The rest were to come from the British Commonwealth. However, the U.S projected that the operation would cost the country more than half a million soldiers. Furthermore, the U.S feared that an invasion would hav...
Thinking historically while conducting counterinsurgency in the 21st century poses questions regarding how to develop political and strategic plans. This bibliographic essay will examine the political and military aspect of fighting counterinsurgent warfare by 20th century theorists Galula’s, “Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice” and Trinquier’s, “Counterinsurgency Warfare Theory and Practice”. Strategy in fighting guerilla wars will be discussed by comparing conflicts in battles and ideologies from the past to current day. Moreover, ways to avoid the one size fits all war mentality when combating modern day insurgents will be recommended.
In today’s operational environments, the U.S. Army is facing a range of problems and mission sets that are arguably more complex than previously encountered. Forces face an array of demands that encompass geo-political, social, cultural, and military factors that interact in unpredictable ways. The inherent complexity of today’s operations has underscored the need for the Army to expand beyond its traditional approach to operational planning. In March 2010 in FM 5-0: The Operations
Terrorism will happen again regardless of how prepared the U.S. thinks it may be. This means that it is the country’s job to ensure that there is a continuation of measures that should be taken to fight against terrorism. Others believe that the U.S. is fully prepared for another terrorist attack and that enough has been done. The question at hand is, should the U.S. still be concerned about terrorism. The United States needs to be concerned about terrorism to prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again, to address problems with domestic terrorism, and to improve homeland security.