The Army National Guard is controlled by the State and Federal government. Because it is also controlled by the federal government it can be deployed overseas. Federalized Guard troops can also be folded into the regular Army, called up to service in the military operations overseas(www.howstuffworks.com). For example 40% of US troops in World War 1 can from National Guard units. By having the Army National Guard it strengthens our Nation’s Military when it is needed like in the example of providing extra troops to be deployed.
However, security is not necessarily linked to survival but rather to the possibility of freely pursuing independence or protecting basic internal interests. “Genuine security requires not only the absence of or protection against a military threat, but also the management of a multitude of risks concerning the political economic, and social well-being of states and their peoples” (Aftendorn, Keohane & Wallander, 1999). 5. Therefore, according to Baldwin, economic security, environmental security, identity security, social security and military security are different forms of security, not fundamentally different concepts” (Baldwin, 1997). 5.
The last criteria is suitable, and while the other two criteria may be ok, the suitable is the standard in which we judge the solution as appropriate to a given situation. An example would be given a mission to defeat a certain adversary, and the solution proposed would be apply nuclear weapons to achieve the mission. While this solution may be feasible and acceptable from a purely military standpoint, it would not be suitable, and considered overkill. All three criteria are considered when building strategies and plans to achieve military objectives. All three must be found to be collectively in concurrence for planners to recommend a strategy to a commander.
Around the world there are many countries debating and have many ways of how the military service should be. Each political regime has its way to deal with this issue. Some countries make the military service an obligatory thing like: South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, and Egypt. And some countries make it an optional thing or in another words an voluntary military service like: the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. The question here is what is the best way to deal with the military service?
Connell states that hegemonic masculinity is likely to be established only if there is some correspondence between cultural ideal and institutional power. Using this definition the military men can legitimately make a claim to hegemonic masculinity. As service members they are agents of the state domination, legally vested with the right to use lethal force in order to maintain domination. Similarly, in the case of the Indian army, it may be interesting to see how the army personnel not only represent the ideal masculinity but also use their institutional power in order to establish their masculinity as hegemonic. However, before going further it is also important to understand the distinction between external and internal hegemonic
Unlike the Infantry, whose missions are often borne from statements, Cavalry missions are borne out of questions that arise during the commander’s military decision making process. Doctrinally we call it “Push” or “Pull” reconnaissance, which is just another way of a commander saying either “I think I have a plan, but go out there and tell me what you see” or “Go out there and tell me what you see because I don’t yet have a plan.” This simple delineation between the Infantry and Cavalry—between a statement and a question—fosters separate cultures and unique identities that often butt heads with each other. Perhaps a few of you in the room have experienced a run in or two with an Infantryman or his squad. The Army calls the relationship between the Infantry and the Cavalry part of a Combined Arms fight—but historically, and often in the barracks Combined Arms often is just another way of describing a boxing match. Some things will never change.
This type of influence especially those that come from an electoral perspective could lead to variations in oversight depending on agency as the public has different relationships with executive agencies the same way that Congress does. If these feelings are not contrary or not high on the public priority list Congress may have more freedom in how they treat certain agencies. This part of the literature answers the question of when congress decides to engage in oversight. The factors discussed here that contribute to their decision-making should also apply to any differences in their oversight between certain agencies, programs
With extensive proof indicating advantages of direct supervision, we might wonder why a few systems select direct supervision while others consider and dismiss it. Reasons might incorporate the thought that direct supervision offices are not in accordance with some corrections expert’s most profound sentiments about what a correctional setting ought to be. These facilities might be seen as being excessively decent for prisoners, who after all should be rebuffed. Once more, the supervision mode might not speak to what some see as being anticipated from an officer. On the off chance that the impression of the supervision model runs counter to profoundly held sentiments or convictions, it might be dismisses regardless of the amount of target confirmation is marshaled for its sake.
Traditionally, peacekeeping operations fall into two main categories: observer missions and peacekeeping forces. Observer missions usually consist of unarmed military and civilian personnel who monitor the implementation of cease-fire agreements. Peacekeeping forces are composed of lightly armed forces, and include fully equipped infantry
The C300 course outlined joint operations and how they pertain to unified actions. In addition, the course discussed operational reach, Range of Military Operations (ROMO), and capabilities of our Sister Services. Lastly, C300 explained the types of command relationship and how they pertained to joint operations. Unified actions are those military forces, organizations, and agencies that can influence operations in a theater. These key players may have a negative or positive outcomes; due to lack of communication or even different objectives between the military and civilian leadership.
In a multination operation, the “command authority is determined by the participating nations or elements.” Although Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander for the operation, his command authority as practiced in the American military did not exist. The operation utilized the British system of “autonomous service commanders.” There were three service component commanders – land, sea, and air – that acted almost independently during the planning and execution of the operation. They did not seek Eisenhower’s intent. They also did not coordinate with each other. The command structure made it all but impossible for Eisenhower to actualize his intent for the operation nor did he tried to act as the commander for the operation.
Overall, historians and theorists have predicated the Cold War as a learning experience for future decision-making. However, one can draw similarities in current military actions, like Iraq and Afghanistan, where those can argue not much has changed in the demeanor and action of military leadership to civilian leadership. Overall, Betts provides a thoroughly researched and structured framework for the reader to analyze historical evidence from a different perspective but I found his conclusions to be inherently flawed. Bibliography: Betts, Richard K. Soldiers, Statesmen, and Cold War Crises. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1977.
When creating IDPs for Commanders in our unit, often times we needed imagery that was collected from a certain look angle, rather than a straight down look angle collected by GeoEye-1. For the purpose of raid mission planning and the like, we would use mostly classified imagery. In addition, the overall clarity of the image would determine the choice as
It is hard for me to agree that F3EAD, compared to D3A, provides a holistic approach, “flatter” command and decision-making structure. I never had a chance to use F3EAD in combat operations, but I have participated, and observed training that included some or all the steps of the process. I would argue that, it is the people and organizations that matter when it comes to F3EAD vs. D3A, and not the actual system. This idea returns to the SOF truth, which states that people are more important than the equipment. FM 3-60 discusses D3A on corps and division level, distinguishing between the two based on organic or attached capabilities.