Going forward, threats to U.S. national interests are likely to increase, even as the list of increasingly bold adversaries continues to grow by the day. Geopolitical shifts are also likely to threaten globe peace and order. Threats to the national interests of the U.S. could also be seen as threats to the country’s allies. Former secretary Carter once pointed out that thanks to the United States’ core interests, Israel is assured of “continued qualitative military edge, and why we’re working with our Gulf partners to make them more capable of defending themselves against external aggression” (Cordersman, 2015). On the basis of these facts, the U.S., as the only superpower, ought to foster closer working relations between its Army and those of other countries so as to better address emerging global threats and other challenges.Building partner capacity is not a new issue. However, as Marquis et al. (2010) points out, it is not until recently that this concept “migrated to positions near the top of the U.S. national security agenda.” In essence, there are three kinds of potential partners in capacity building efforts that have been identified by Marquis et al. 2010. These are coalition partners, regional leaders, and indigenous partners. The authors define a coalition partner as “a willing provider of significant stability operations-related capability in support of coalition operations outside the nation’s own boarders” (Marquis et al. 2010). In essence, such a partner, as the authors further point, out ought to be internally stable, have a strategic ‘chemistry’ or rapport with the U.S., and have the recognition of the international community as a legitimate government. A regional leader, on the other hand, is viewed as “an actual or potential provider of capability and leadership for regionally based stability operations...
interests” (Marquis et al. 2010). Lastly, we have indigenous partners which as Marquis et al. (2010) observe are states that are rather fragile but cooperative and friendly to the U.S. and whose ‘demise’ could threaten the interests of the United States.
leadership different for joint operations? Do you think this is a critical component for effective military leadership for today's military? The need for the United States to act jointly as part of a community-based international effort vs. striking alone has become increasingly important. There are more multinational threats posed in the form of non-state actors like terrorists as well as an upsurge in rogue regimes. This requires a different military
JOINT INTEROPERABILITY CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW I. Seeking to Define and Understand Joint Interoperability There has historically been a challenge in attempting to properly understand in complexity in defining joint interoperability. This is related in the work of Faughn (2002) entitled: "Interoperability: Is it Achievable?" published by the Center for Information Policy Research at Harvard University. It is stated by Faughn that: "...the "shortfalls in operability among U.S. forces, first publicized by the press
Summary Joint functions or warfighting functions are the tasks that systems that are used by commanders to accomplish missions and objectives. Systems refer to people, organizations, processes, and information. There are six warfighting functions namely mission command, movement and maneuver, intelligence, fires, sustainment, and protection. These functions are mostly used to reinforce and complement each other. While each function has its own role to play it cannot be used in isolation
Appraisal of Operation Anaconda Kugler (2007) states that Operation Anaconda was the first large-scale battle to be carried out as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, which incorporated joint efforts between Special Forces and multinational partners. These forces worked together in Shahi Kot Vallley in Afghanistan in 2002. The battle took place in a rugged mountainous terrain with extremely complex circumstances for the soldiers. In addition to the complex terrain, the soldiers
Case Study: Operation AnacondaThe U.S. military initiated operation Anaconda to vacate the enemy, Al Qaeda, and Taliban, from Shahikot valley in Afghanistan in March 2002 (Kugler, 2007). The launch was planned with a complex approach that involved the �hammer and anvil� technique for eliminating the enemy from Afghani land. The mission was considered the U.S. army killed a success as hundreds of enemy fighters whereas only 50 U.S. army men
Abstract In this essay, we discuss the Battle of Inchon, also known as Operation Chromite. This battle was a pivotal part of the Korean War, because winning it was necessary if the United Nations wanted the ability to land troops and recapture South Korea. After reading this article, you will have a better idea of how the Battle of Inchon helped change the direction of the war. It will start with
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now