The question here is what is the best way to deal with the military service? Should it be a mandatory or an optional thing? If obligatory what is the pros of it? This topic is a very debatable. However in my opinion the military service should be mandatory to defend the country from any external danger and to protect the borders.
She concludes that PMCs and their employees or mercenaries should be treated as uniformed soldiers and public military organizations. In the first section of this article, Fabre categorically stipulates “my claim is that, under strict conditions (which current practices do not meet), the marketization of war is not morally wrong.” She argues that although one should not kill for gain, circumstances might be so dire as to provide the employer and employee with a justification for such an act. She tables an argument based on the right of individuals to
A national security for one’s nation is important, though, each person’s right with one’s consideration is also important too. So, objecting military service due to conscientious reasons is recognized by others. Conscientious objecting is one’s decision with right and consideration Your conscience is the part of your mind that tells you whether what you are doing is right or wrong. If you have a guilty conscience, you feel guilty about something because you know it was wrong. If you have a clear conscience, you do not feel guilty because you know you have done nothing wrong.
This type of warfare gives the attacker a multidimensional array of offense. A major advantage of asymmetric offense is that it does not require the same level of numerical superiority than its counterpart does. It can also help to bring out the creative side of commanders to flourish, giving them ways to exercise innovative and unorthodox ways to attack. Another advantage is to help develop capabilities in the military to handle the whole spectrum of
PROPORTIONALITY Proportionality is a principle that addresses how much force is necessary to achieve a military objective. It requires combatants to take deliberate care to minimize harm to innocent civilians during an armed attack. The principle of proportionality pro¬hibits attacks on military targets where the expect¬ed harm to civilians would be excessive compared to the military advantage expected to be gained from the attack (Grove 2013). Second, a state resorting to the use of force must prove its use of force was proportionate to the military campaign's objective. Article 51(5) of Additional Protocol I prohibits attacks which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects which
Many issues come into composition when an officer chooses to use force. These consist of • is the using of such force is justified • has the officer been properly trained to use necessary force • will the Ministry of Police be held liable if the force is used improperly? So is it necessary to implement such Use of Force Policy and why is it important? How can it benefit us? What are the cost?
Although the Court acknowledged that "the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens ' militia by taking away their arms was the reason that [the] right…was codified in a written Constitution." The Court asserted that "individual self-defense…was the central component of the right itself" (Issues & Controversies). The creators of the Second Amendment knew that the government could potentially have the power to take the freedom of the people 's individual right to carry arms. To ensure that they could not do such thing, they placed the Second Amendment in our Constitution. Not surprisingly, our founding fathers were not just worried about a militia to protect the new nation, as asserted by those who say the Second Amendment is a collective right, they were emphatic that the citizens could rise against the republic should it become corrupt (Halbrook, Stephen P., and Calif).
President Trump, addressing the recent Mandatory Government service controversy there are serious measures that need to be taken. In order for our country to have an equal and moral foundation for civic participation, all angles must be properly accounted for. Mandatory Government service, in theory, sounds like a good idea, however, asserting your rights in the form of Government service should not be necessary. As a citizen of this country, there is a moral obligation to serve to the best that you can and at your own will. By making it mandatory rather than a choice you take away space for personal achievements.
This would keep people from reaching their full potential, possibly to help the whole of the population. Yes, it is good to for the government to have control, but the power the government has in the story Harrison Bergeron is way too much. In present day, the government has set boundaries, does not overstep them. If it were to overstep them, there would be outcries against it, but by that point it would be too late to fight back. One should be able to control their own destiny, and be allowed to reach their full potential and all of the good it might
Operation Anaconda would have greatly benefited from a unified command structure, because of the command structure that the operation used there were many issues with planning, integration, and confusion. Even though Operation Anaconda was considered a success, it would not have suffered so much adversary if they had a single unified command
I am a pacifist; I am not completely against war and violence, it is a means to self preservation of the person and the state. War can be used to fight against legitimate threats such as thieves, invading countries, and terrorists. Compulsory service in the military is a breach of my civil liberties and personal philosophy. That is a direct threat to freedom. I would be for a draft (such as in World War Two, as a means of self preservation) as a legitimate government activity to protect the country.
In an OCONUS JIIM, the SFWO will need to rely on the attribute of solving complex political-military problems, develop, and employ conventional and unconventional solutions. SFWO need to recognize in the OCONUS environment your counterparts may not desire the same result as you. Even elements within our own government during OCONUS mission, i.e. the State Department often times are not looking for the same result. It can be a political minefield with multiple problems from multiple directions; a SFWO needs to be creative in order to satisfy all parties involved with an OCONUS JIIM
In order to Mission Command the BDE in direct action fight against a near-peer threat, our MAIN CP configuration had to evolve. Doctrinally, a command post’s configuration boils down to two opposing forces: Survivability versus Efficiency. A command post’s survivability is vital to mission success; however, command posts often gain survivability at the price of effectiveness. When concentrated, the enemy can easily acquire and target most command posts.
Firstly, I agree that the US should not offer military aid to countries which do not qualify for it. However, depending on what is in the best interest of the US, I understand why exceptions to this regulation are made. In order to take care of our own citizens and allies, we need to protect our own interests first.
One of the biggest challenges that good leaders face is the encounter with another good leader. Though the initial thought would be that two leaders would work well together, that isn’t always the case. Good leaders can obtain all the same qualities but portray them in such different ways that they could possibly clash. Operation AL FAJR was a study conducted on a U.S Army and