Importance of the Military

The Historical and Political Importance of Projecting a Military Force Around the World
1 1 unread reply. 1 1 reply.
This activity will address module outcome 2. Upon completing this activity, you will be able to:
• Explain the U.S. National Security Strategy (CO5)
The United States has long served in the role of a world superpower. In this role, there is a level of military force that is expected from a superpower. As the U.S. has evolved over time, there is a thought that it is an inherent need to continue projecting this force, via state-of-the-art technology or by other means.
Still yet, there are others who would argue that a more diplomatic and multilateral approach is much more effective, thus creating a dichotomous relationship with need to remain secure while at the same time ensuring positive relationships with world leaders. These positive relationships lead to stronger economic ties and positive economic results for the entire U.S. and not just a small few. That being said, the MiC continues to harness an enormous amount of political power and influencing policy.
The U.S. National Security Strategy is an important policy document that shapes how the world views the U.S. as well as sends a powerful message regarding what the administration finds to be most important. In this discussion, you will be asked to dissect two strategy reports from the Obama Administration.
After reading the instructor notes, reviewing the U.S. National Strategy Reports for 2010 and 2015 please consider the following;
• What are the top three driving factors for the national security strategies for each report? Is there overlap and if so, what differentiates the two?
• In your assessment is there a difference? If not, why do you think this is the case? Also provide an analysis of your overall thoughts of the two strategies and what you believe is to be the most important given the importance of projecting a military force around the world.
Module 8: Module Notes: Security and Diplomacy- Unilateralism or Multilateralism
The role of foreign relations and security in the U.S. has a long-standing history of contradiction between the need for security and diplomacy. In particular, the President’s Cabinet Structure itself positions, in many ways, the Department of Defense against the Department of State. Both play critical roles in establishing the U.S. as a leading power in the world but accomplish their goals utilizing very different approaches. A prime example of this juxtaposition could be seen during the Bush Administration where Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State, Colin Powell and then Condoleezza Rice were at odds throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. The latter tends to pursue international relations from a “liberal” perspective, utilizing diplomacy and interdependence (ex: nongovernmental organizations (NGO’S), non-state actors, and non-military governmental personnel) to accomplish their goals. While the former, tends to lean towards a “realist” perspective, keeping security at the forefront of the mission. War strategy and security drive decision making (Frieden, 2013).
As stated previously, the fall of the USSR, led to the United States self-nominating itself to the role as the lone global superpower. There are two schools of thought when it comes to international relations and the decision to go to war and issues around security. Unilateralism and Multilateralism. Please see their definitions below.
• Unilateralism
• Multilateralism
“a policy of taking unilateral (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. action (as in international affairs) regardless of outside support or reciprocity; also advocacy of such a policy”
Relations tend to be influenced by the MiC and have oftentimes led U.S. policy driven by special interests.
Source: Merriam-Webster (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Links to an external site.Unilateralist approaches to foreign relations tend to be influenced by the MiC and has oftentimes led U.S. policy driven by special interests. This is not to say that the same does not occur with the State Department, but for the purpose of this discussion, we will focus on how the dichotomy between the two, tends to provide an advantage to the MiC. The Bush Administration was largely criticized for having invaded Iraq, unilaterally, in an effort to appease the MiC. His Vice President, Dick Cheney, was linked to the large company of Halliburton who has been awarded several exclusive contracts in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. Many would argue that his connections to the MiC influenced him to encourage the President to invade, never considering the long-term effects on foreign relations.
The Obama Administration took on very different approaches, many would say, the exact opposite of the Bush Administration, to foreign relations in an effort to mend those relationships harmed by the Iraq war. The realities of foreign relations however, have continued policies and practices that are necessary in maintaining the international position of the U.S. as a superpower. The key in this is to understand that no one approach can accommodate for every situation and each administration must balance the long-term effects in their decision making. What can be deduced however, is the need to maintain an understanding of the power and potential negative effects of pandering to the MiC.
The National Security Strategy and the Military Industrial Complex (MiC) interweave frequently, but lawmakers must ensure that special interest groups and bureaucracy do not jeopardize U.S. military forces or its economy. In your discussion boards, we will study and analyze the Impact of the Military Industrial Complex to U.S. economy and also provide an analysis of the U.S. National Security Strategy.
References
The Military-Industrial Complex. (2017). Military-industrial complex speech text (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Retrieved from http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/military-industrial-complex-speech.asp#micmention
Frieden, Jeffry A., Lake, David A., and Schultz, Kenneth A. (2013). World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions (2nd ed.). New York. W.W. Norton & Company.