Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Changing role of NATO
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Changing role of NATO
A major strategic decision in the Obama Administration was the way victory should be defined in Afghanistan. Many factors, opinions, and relationship dynamics came into play in the decision that our focus should be in Pakistan and that Afghanistan is really more of a sideshow. While at times Vice President Biden seems somewhat laughable, evidence shows that his ideas have a powerful impact on the decision that we cannot win in Afghanistan; we need a set time table for with draw and the key is Pakistan. Biden first argues for a plan called counterterrorism plus in a National Security Council meeting. His longwinded explanation of how we must focus on al Qaeda in Pakistan may have had some rolling their eyes, but he did make valid points. Foreign relations in Afghanistan were almost impossible and additional troop presence there would just prolong failure. He also argued it was also not politically sustainable. Everyone, however, was in approval of another strategy and recommendations presented by Bruce Riedel, chairman of the Interagency Policy Review of Afghanistan-Pakistan (101-102). Obama was then presented with the Riedel’s strategy and military options. The problem was that the military was trying to manipulate the president. He was presented with choices so ridiculous on both sides of the spectrum that the only logical choice was the one in the middle (103). Biden, however, was the only one that was not backing the option that Bruce Riedel and others supported (104). This refusal to support Riedel and others showed Obama that at least one person was in opposition to options that were calculating. Army Lieutenant Stanley McChrystal was then appointed the new Afghanistan commander and was asked to deliver an assessment on t... ... middle of paper ... ... dynamics on decision making for the war in Afghanistan. Perseverance or perhaps annoyance might come to mind but in decisions this monumental it has to be something bigger then just that. Relationships may have a bigger impact. Biden offers an alternative solution so dramatic from Petraeus and other military officials that were antagonistic to the president’s desires. Obama was able to trust Biden to ask the right questions, push the right points, and have his interests in mind. It was this trust and Biden’s argument that actually understood the complexity of the situation and provided a insightful solution to the central problems that made him able to be such a key factor in the decision making process. Woodward, Bob. Obama's Wars. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Print. Works Cited Woodward, Bob. Obama's Wars. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010. Print.
On October 3rd, 2002, Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone walked unto the Senate floor to give what would be one of the most momentous speeches of his career. A day prior, the Senate leadership had introduced a resolution, backed by the George W. Bush Administration, to authorize the President to attack Iraq. Wellstone, a progressive Democrat, had long been noted for his strong anti-war views. However, he was at the time struggling to win reelection, and a vote against the popular resolution could sway the election in his opponent’s favor. Yet instead of joining the bipartisan chorus for war with Iraq and abandoning his anti-war convictions, Wellstone chose to stand as a “monument of individual courage” and raise his concerns about the direction of American foreign policy (Kennedy 223).
As the incoming brigade commander, LTC (P) Owens, I see the critical leadership problem facing the 4th Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) is the inability or unwillingness of Colonel Cutler to lead and manage change effectively. In initial talks with Col Cutler and in reviewing the brigade’s historical unit status reports, the 4th ABCT performed as well as can be expected in Afghanistan, but as the onion was peeled back there are numerous organizational issues that were brought to the surface while I walked around and listened to the soldiers of the 4th ABCT, in addition to reviewing the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) report. One of the most formidable tasks of a leader is to improve the organization while simultaneously accomplishing
After an analysis of the preliminary speeches Former Senator Robert C. Byrd gave in the early 2000s one may deduce that the senator had the welfare of his fellow Americans in mind as the copious amounts of people around the world might be effected by this war. These speeches are in regard to the grand dilemma that presented itself over a decade ago. This conflict happened to be whether or not we ought to go to war with Iraq. The vein of the initial speech, Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution, is cautionary. Byrd is attempting to emblematically pump the breaks on the notion that we have a duty to wage war. In the second speech A Preordained Course of Action on Iraq, Byrd continues to convey his disapprobation as well as recurrently referencing
3 Colonel John T. Carney Jr., No Room for Error, 273. 4. Richard Kugler, Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, 3. 5. General Tommy Franks, American Soldier, 1988. 6 Todd Marzano, Criticisms Associated with Operation Anaconda, Can Long Distance Leadership Be Effective, 4. 7 Todd Marzano, Criticisms Associated with Operation Anaconda, Can Long Distance Leadership Be Effective, 6. 8 Sean Naylor, Not a Good Day to Die, 121.
The performance of Major General Ambrose E. Burnside at the helm of the Army of the Potomac can be characterized as less than stellar. His failures to understand, describe, lead, and assess during the Battle of Fredericksburg ultimately led to his army’s defeat and the death of tens of thousands of Federal soldiers. The fate of the mission and our soldiers rely on our ability to conduct mission command activities. It is essential we learn from the grave mistakes of the commanders of the past and become prepared to carry out these activities when we are called to do
At the start of the movie, photos of the medium-range ballistic Soviet missiles in Cuba are revealed to President Kennedy. This new information the United States possessed was unbeknownst to the public, press and the Soviets themselves. Therefore, a team of advisors known as exComm, including special assistant to the President, Kenneth O’Donnell, Robert Kennedy, and Joint Chiefs of Staff, are assembled to discuss the next course of action privately. The various public administration theories of decision making are useful in analysing the president and his team’s various deliberations on actions that should be taken to tackle the crisis as portrayed in the movie. Ideally, the President should have adopted the rational comprehensive approach in his decision making process; engaging a systematic ana...
Peterson, Paul E. "The President's Dominance in Foreign Policy Making." Political Science Quarterly 109.2 (Summer, 1994): 215-234.
He was also a Gulf War veteran who commanded an armored cavalry. His desire in writing this book was to examine, through the recently declassified documents, manuscript collections, and the Joint Chief of Staff official histories, where the responsibility for the Vietnam foreign policy disaster lay, but also examine the decisions made that involved the United States in a war they could not win. This book details the discussion of government policy in the stages of the Vietnam crisis from 1961-July 1965. It examines the main characters of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Robert McNamara, in addition to the military, which included the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It began in the Kennedy era amidst the Bay of Pigs incident and how that led to mistrust of the military planning by advisors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Political scientists have continually searched for methods that explain presidential power and success derived from using that power effectively. Five different approaches have been argued including the legal approach, presidential roles approach, Neustadtian approach, institutional approach, and presidential decision-making approach. The legal approach says that all power is derived from a legal authority (U.S. Constitution). The presidential roles approach contends that a president’s success is derived from balancing their role as head of state and head of government. The Neustadtian approach contends that “presidential power is the power to persuade“ (Neustadt, p. 11). The institutional approach contends that political climate and institutional relations are what determines presidential power. The last approach, decision-making, provides a more psychological outlook that delves into background, management styles, and psychological dispositions to determine where a president’s idea of power comes from. From all of these, it is essential to study one at a time in order to analyze the major components of each approach for major strengths and weaknesses.
All throughout history from Greece to modern day, tragic heroes have existed, not only in literature, but in real life as well. President Richard Nixon meets the criteria of a tragic hero. During his presidency, Nixon exhibited goodness and had high standing before his fatal mistake that led to his downfall.
President Johnson’s in-group avoided reconsidering its escalation policy when time and again the expectation on which they based their decisions turned out to be wrong. The policy-makers avoided the discussion of prior decisions and kept inventing new rationalizations to recommit themselves into defeating the North Vietnamese.
However, the president was a moderate, therefore he was concerned with both economics and the environment. As a member of the domestic policy group and as the Director of the NEC, I felt that most of the conflicts transpired because it was difficult to satisfy both the economic and environmental needs. As a result, though extremely difficult, our group strived to create a policy proposal with five parts each aimed at addressing either the economy or the environment. Similarly, in the foreign policy simulation, it was also difficult for participants to create a U.S. foreign policy that allowed the United States to work with Russia in order to remove Assad without committing United States ground forces. However, members in the foreign policy group also had to strive to advance the economic interests and protect the safety of the United States. Correspondingly, the crisis simulation also demonstrates the complexity of presidential decision-making. At this juncture, in the crisis simulation participants had difficulty deciding how the United States should respond to the Israel intelligence stating that Iran has nuclear capabilities. During the simulation, participants
...troops are withdrawn. The government in Afghanistan will be able to run itself with guidance from America, shifting to the supporting role. Obama’s plan was more effective than Nixon’s in that it actually worked and did not need to be faked. President Obama’s approach to ending the war greatly helps to benefit America and its people.
Al-Qaeda Introduction Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization established in Peshawar, Pakistan, between 1988 and 1989 by Osama bin Laden and his teacher Abullah Yusuf Azzam. Al-Qaeda is an international terrorist network that is considered the top terrorist threat to the United States. Al Qaeda is seeking to get rid of all westerns from Muslim territory and replace their own Islamic regime. They are a group of people who work together to plan acts of terrorism against Muslims and non-Muslims especially in the United States. Al Qaeda believes that they are fighting a holy war against the enemy of their religion.
Flannagan, Michael. "Foreign Policy Better with Obama than Bush" The Lantern - Ohio State University. College Publisher Network, 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. .