THE AMERICAN MILITARY IN PEACE AND WAR

SUNY College at ONEONTA                                                Spring, 2010
CRN 314 POLS 292-01                                                          Professor Paul Conway
T,Th 10-11:15, SCHU 112

The standard of justice depends upon the equality of power to compel.  - Thucydides

For what can be done against force without force?                              - Cicero

The subordination of the political point of view to the military would be contrary to common
sense, for policy has declared the war; it is the intelligent faculty, war only the instrument,
and not the reverse. . . political intercourse does not cease by the war itself . . . it continues to exist.
                                                                                                                         - Karl Von Clausewitz

The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new
in the American military experience.*                                               -  Dwight D. Eisenhower

The military (leader) rarely favors war. He will always argue that the danger of war requires increased
armaments; he will seldom argue that increased armaments make war practical or more desirable.
He always favors preparedness, but he never feels prepared.                - Samuel P. Huntington

If the American military services are allowed to do their own thing, the US will have few ready forces.
The services have traditionally prepared for the long haul, concentrating on hardware that requires years of development. - Graham Allison

This course: The statements above are insightful, I believe, and they also reflect some of my own values
and sense of political reality as I organize the materials for this course. This catalog description below
suggests the essence of the course but does not hint at the complexity of this subject that encompasses
historical, cultural, economic, sociological, geographic, and psychological (as well as political) variables.

POLS 292 American Military in Peace and War 3 s.h.
Analyzes the organization of American military services and the role of combat in pursuit of
national political objectives. The course deals with the aftermath of World War II, the Cold
War and especially developments since the first U.S. Persian Gulf War that help to explain
contemporary national security issues and priorities. The problems of maintaining civilian
control of the military and the management of Defense Department policies will be
carefully considered. (LA) Prerequisite: SoS or 3 s.h. POLS.

This instructor: After several years in the military, I did most of my undergraduate work at Michigan
State University and my graduate studies at Montclair State in New Jersey and Purdue University in
Indiana. Most of my research and teaching is related to international politics and U.S. foreign policies.

Office: 14F SCHU (basement); regular hours are T,Th 11:20-12 and W 3:30-4:4:45.
My office phone # is 3923; my e-mail address is conwaypg.

Objectives: A primary objective of this course is to encourage critical thinking about military and
defense issues as political phenomena. That means, among other things, a careful consideration of
our sources of information, new terms and concepts, and the language of politics that we often take for granted. We should try to be skeptical (not cynical) and avoid ethnocentrism as much as possible. We should strive for a broad, historical perspective and seek analogies that can be helpful in an analytic sense. Throughout the semester you should become familiar with concepts such as bureaucracy, bureaucratic politics, friction, procurement, logistics, deterrence, geopolitics, balance of power politics, diplomacy, and international law. We should strive for objectivity and acknowledge that there is much that we can't know for sure. We are not likely to learn much from people who are ideologues and `know-it-alls’. Thus we should pursue an understanding of military politics with a sense of curiosity about human nature in uncertain and sometimes dangerous conditions.

Grades: There will be three tests and three assignments.
The tests will count for 50% of the course grade; the assignments will count for 50%.

Required books

Thomas E. Ricks, Making the Corps (New York: Simon & Schuster Touchtone paperback, 1997)

Dale R. Herspring, The Pentagon and the Presidency (University of Kansas, 2005)

Allison Stanger, One Nation Under Contract: The Outsourcing of American Power and the Future of Foreign Policy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009)

Thomas E. Ricks, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq (New York, Penguin pbk, 2007)

U.S. Army - U.S. Marine Corps, Counterinsurgency Field Manual (Chicago edition, 2007)

OUTLINE OF TOPICS AND ASSIGNMENTS

Date Topic Assignment

January
21 The military ethos and traditional concepts of warfare:
War is a political act . . . a continuation of policy. . . the essence of war is combat
Clausewitz in On War . . . (1967 Gateway paperback edition) pp 82, 83, 101.
Sun Tzu (in The Art of War, Oxford paperback edition, 1971; p.78)
The worst policy is to attack cities. Attack cities only when there is no alternative.

The military in American history: How many conflicts? So what? How about the Constitution?
Questions and concepts (begin Ricks on Making the Corps)

26 Civil-military relations in the USA: The organization of the Defense Department and the military services
The concept of bureaucracy and bureaucratic politics in the Defense establishment
The military as a political institution; the military as a profession (Officers and NCO's)
Does a stereotype of the "military mind" make sense? 'Grunts' vs 'CinC's' and the JCS Chiefs
Herspring (H) 1-22

28 Racial integration and Women in the military, gays in the military
Heroism in battle: What is courage? http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4639029n
What motivates soldiers to fight in combat situations?

February

2 Are the marines different? Are special forces different? How do the services differ?
Military culture and service culture. Finish Making the Corps by Ricks

4 FDR and Truman Strategy and tactics in WWII and Korea Herspring, 1-84
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/macarthur/maps/koreatxt.html
http://www.kmike.com/inchon.htm

Sidebar: Ricks on Iraq as of 2/8/10 http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1609538/The.Roundtable/Tom.Ricks.-.Part.1
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain/article/231/0/1609541/The.Roundtable/Tom.Ricks.-.Part.2

9   (A-1)                          Eisenhower The Cold War, nuclear deterrence, and containment politics

Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex speech (1961) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/782356/eisenhower_on_the_military_industrial_complex/
* Ike's Military-Industrial-Complex fairwell speech conclusion: "Each proposal (for military projects) must be weighed
    in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among other vital national programs."
The Defense Budget (some sources below)                                                                      Herspring 85-119

16 Kennedy and Cuba, arms control, and Vietnam Herspring 118-149
Excerpt from transcripts of the Missile Crisis decisionmaking (handout)

18 Johnson and Vietnam; McNamara and the JCS (The "fog of war" movie, excerpt)
Herspring150-183

BREAK

March
2 Nixon and Ford Secret wars and secret policies: Laos and Cambodia
Balance of power/realpolitik and Vietnam Herspring 184-236

4 TEST

11 (A-2) Review of test A cursory comparison of difficulties in Vietnam and Afghanistan (handout)

Sidebar: The Coast Guard and national security
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/opinion/27korb.html?th&emc=th

16 Carter 237-264
Sidebar: The Navy: Women in subs? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124012953

18 Reagan 265-296 Reagan and the JCS Sidebar: the Air Force, TAC and the F-22 issue
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101896956
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101975087

23 George H.W. Bush (I) 297-330

25 Clinton Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo (and, why not Rwanda?) 331-376

30 George W. Bush (II) 377-408
(Begin reading Fiasco before break)

April
1 TEST # 2

BREAK
13 Review of test
Ricks interviews http://fora.tv/2009/02/23/Thomas_Ricks_The_Gamble#fullprogram http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rzwyTzqlvU&feature=related

15 Finish Ricks' Fiasco book

20 Obama and the war in Afghanistan Can we get out of our longest war?
(peruse Army/Marine Counterinsurgency Manual & bring to class
http://fora.tv/2009/02/23/Thomas_Ricks_The_Gamble

Thomas Ricks, author of THE GAMBLE at the SF Commonwealth Club

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=commonwealth+club+thomas+ricks&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html?scp=2&sq=Op-Ed+&st=nyt

22 Karzai flouts US? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/world/asia/30karzai.html?th&emc=th
Special Ops Forces under control?

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=126195738&m=126211487

?id=5245555n&tag=related;photovideo

More bombing in Afghanistan? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/washington/21policy.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

27 (A-3) Stanger Private military contractors foods, clothes, laundry duty, construction, trucking and mercenaries??? Sidebar: Blackwater name change?!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/13/AR2009021303149.html

Read sidebar: R&D on revolutionary new weaponry "Prompt Global Strike (PGS)"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/world/europe/23strike.html?sq=&st=nyt&scp=1&pagewanted=print

29 Stanger to page 54
Insurgent unit in Afghanistan: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/talibanlines/view/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=proglist&utm_source=proglist

May

4 Stanger 56-136
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain/article/3566/0/1611213/WAMC.Speakers.Corner/Alan.Chartock...In.Conversation.with.Dr..Allison.Stanger

11 Review finish Stanger (to 184)

13 Final test scheduled for 8-10:30am (will end at 10am)

***********************************************************************************

The last assignment is to write a brief think piece - 3-4 pages maximum length - on a topic of interest to you. Consider the pros and cons of a one of the DoD/military policy issues below. A minimum of four sources should be used and clearly cited (two pro and two con) Look for scholarly and popular sources of data and opinions in your cursory research. The due date is 4/27.

Topics for the third assignment:

What are the pros and cons regarding rapid deployment of a Missile Defense System? (taken - Mr Jarvis)

Why did the DoD limit the production of more tactical AF F-22 fighter planes?
Is the F-35 a good alternative? (taken - Mr. Dorman)

Do we need the Navy blue water combat ship destroyer DDG-1000

Why are aircraft carriers important now? Do we have enough? Do we have too many?
What are the arguments pro and con, given the threats and the costs involved?

Do we need to develop the Virginia-class attack submarine?

Piracy in the Indian Ocean - Can the US Navy cope? How? Or, why not?

Do we need the Marine's V-22 Osprey

Should the US support an international ban on Cluster Bomb Units (CBU's)? (taken - Mr. Bremer)

Should the US support a comprehensive ban on military land mines? (taken - Mr Sena)

Should the Senate ratify a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban (CTB)? (taken: Mr. Koval)

Is Clausewitz still relevant? How?

Women in the military - Are their opportunities equal? Should they be allowed to serve in combat and Special Forces units, if they can qualify? Is enough being done by the DoD to discourage sexual abuse? (taken - Ms Ogut)

Lifting or maintaining the ban on homosexuals in the military (taken: Mr Glascott)

Do racist/Nazi/potential terrorist cells within the military pose any threat to national security? What, if anything, is being done to deal with this (potential) theat? (taken - Mr. Harding)

Is US national security vulnerable to a cyberterrorist attack? What are the most likely sources of such an attack? What is the military and or Homeland Security doing to defend against such an attack?
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=3&islist=true&id=13&d=04-19-2010

The politics of awarding medals for heroism and outstanding behavior in military combat (taken: Nicole Stellato)

The politics and consequences of racial integration within the military services ((taken - Mr. Zucker)

Historical and contemporary issues related to religious discrimination in the US military (taken: Ms. Solazzo)

Is the all volunteer force better for a democratic society or should there be
a national service obligation? (taken - Mr. Turecamo)

What kind of threat does North Korea pose to US national security? What weapons systems and contingency plans are relevant to the US military? (taken - Mr. Sapp)

The future of NATO and Russian-American relations What weapons systems and contingency plans are relevant to the US military?

Does China threaten US security? How?
What DoD policies vis-a-vis China or Taiwan should be changed, if any? What weapons systems and contingency plans are relevant to the US military?

What kind of threat does Iran pose to US national security? What weapons systems and contingency plans are relevant to the US military?
(taken - Mr. Light)

********************************************************************************

The issue of torture as US policy
"Frontline" documentary http://www.torturingdemocracy.org/

Was the abuse of suspects or potential suspects during war against terrorists widespread? systematic? Who authorized it?

What kind of abuses? How widespread were the abuses? Where did the abuses take place? (e.g. Abu Ghraib, Baghram AF Base in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, secret “black” sites in Europe and Central Asia.) Use of “extraordinary rendition” practice.

The slippery slope from authorizing torture (in Bush admin memoranda by Bybee and John Yoo,

The practices that officials authorized are now widely acknowledged as illegal.

Nonetheless the officials who were responsible for writing and approving the practices

during the first term of the GWBush administration will not, or can not, be prosecuted

(Why not? Political considerations rather than legal considerations are paramount)

Effect on prosecution of the wars?

Effect on public opinion and political climate in the USA?

Daily Telegraph (UK) 27 may 09 report http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5395830/Abu-Ghraib-abuse-photos-show-rape.html

Photographs of alleged prisoner abuse which Barack Obama is attempting to censor include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse, it has emerged.
By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent and Paul Cruickshank
Published: 8:02PM BST 27 May 2009

· New outrage over Iraq prison abuse photographs

· US troops could stay in Iraq for a decade

· Telegraph report over Abu Ghraib 'abuse' photos confirmed

· Call for inquiry into Abu Ghraib 'rape' photographs

· Obama attempts to block release of 'torture' photos

· Barack Obama attempts to block alleged torture photos

A previous image of Iraq prison abuse

At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee. Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube. Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts. Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq.

Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He has now confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph.

The graphic nature of some of the images may explain the President Obama's attempts to block the release of an estimated 2,000 photographs from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan despite an earlier promise to allow them to be published.

Maj Gen Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President’s decision, adding: “These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency. “I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan. “The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.”

In April, Mr Obama’s administration said the photographs would be released and it would be “pointless to appeal” against a court judgment in favour of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). But after lobbying from senior military figures, Mr Obama changed his mind saying they could put the safety of troops at risk.

Earlier this month, he said: “The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to inflame anti-American public opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.” It was thought the images were similar to those leaked five years ago, which showed naked and bloody prisoners being intimidated by dogs, dragged around on a leash, piled into a human pyramid and hooded and attached to wires. Mr Obama seemed to reinforce that view by adding: “I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib.”

The latest photographs relate to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 in Abu Ghraib and six other prisons. Mr Obama said the individuals involved had been “identified, and appropriate actions” taken. Maj Gen Taguba’s internal inquiry into the abuse at Abu Ghraib, included sworn statements by 13 detainees, which, he said in the report, he found “credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses.”

Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: “I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn’t covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid’s ***…. and the female soldier was taking pictures.”

The translator was an American Egyptian who is now the subject of a civil court case in the US.

Three detainees, including the alleged victim, refer to the use of a phosphorescent tube in the sexual abuse and another to the use of wire, while the victim also refers to part of a policeman’s “stick” all of which were apparently photographed.

Torture in historical perspective - Human nature, or what? The Knights Templar documents
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15492126
What is "torture" and why do people do it?
Research on authoritarian personality (Adorno, et al), obedience (Milgram), role expectations (Zimbardo)
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/26/usdom14465.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23373-2004Jun7.html

The history of one technique - Waterboarding:http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
See also “The Water Cure” by Paul Kramer in The New Yorker, Feb 25, 2008 and “
On Language: Waterboarding” by William Safire, in the New York Times Magazine; Mar 9, 2008
also, internal CIA controversy and confusion on techniques http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012908N.shtml

The Abu Ghraib photos: cautionary warning - they are graphic: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/
The whistle blowers - what happens to them? Sp. Joseph Darby, General Taguba, Col Morris D. Davis, former Chief Prosecutor
at Guantanamo NYTimes 2/28/08
Guantanamo abuses? - radio essay http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=331
The documents: - Geneva Protocol; ICCPR Protocol; - Convention Against the Practice of Torture (CAT); Taguba Report
QUESTIONS about torture -
Defining torture for political purposes How is, and how should, torture be defined?
Have US government officials promoted or condoned torture?
Does torture generate useful information?
- What are the political consequences given the widespread perception that the US has promoted torture of captives?
What happens if individuals go outside the chain of command to report perceived abuses?
Does domestic or international law matter in deciding on such practices or policies?

Excerpts from related international declarations and laws/treaties:

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)

Article 5. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The Geneva Protocol on the treatment of prisoners of war (1929 and 1949)
. . . the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

The UN Protocol on Political and Civil Liberties (1976)
Article 7

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

The International Convention Against Torture (1984/87)
PART I Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Different views on the question of US policies (re Guantanamo)
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15839964
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15843094
Perspective of a Marine lawyer http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15783244

************************************************************************************************************

The organizational structure of the US military (data as of 2/28/2009)

Just under one and a half million people are on active duty^[12] in the military with an additional 848,000 people in the seven reserve components.^[3] It is an all volunteer military, nonetheless, conscription can be enacted by the request of the President and the approval of Congress. The United States military is the second largest in the world, after the People's Liberation Army of China, and has troops deployed around the globe.

In early 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates proposed to the President to increase the overall size of the Army and Marine Corps to meet the needs of the War on Terrorism.^[13] Current plans are to increase the Army to 547,400 and the Marine Corps to 202,000 by 2012. The expansion will cost a total of $90.7 billion between 2009 and 2013 as the Navy and Air Force undergo a limited force reduction.^[14] In addition, in 2009, Gates proposed increasing the size of the Army by 22,000 troops in order to reduce fatigue from multiple trips overseas, and to compensate for troops who are in recovery away from their units.As in most militaries, members of the U.S. Armed Forces hold a rank, either that of officer or enlisted, and can be promoted.

Component	Military	Enlisted	Officer	Female	Civilian
Army	548,000	456,651	88,093	73,902	243,172
Marine Corps	203,095	182,147	20,639	12,290
Navy	332,000	276,276	51,093	50,008	182,845
Air Force	323,000	261,193	64,370	64,137	154,032
Coast Guard	41,000	32,647	8,051	4,965	7,396
Total Active	1,445,000	1,174,563	224,144	200,337	580,049
Army National Guard	353,000
Army Reserve	205,000
Marine Forces Reserve	40,000
Navy Reserve	67,000
Air National Guard	107,000
Air Force Reserve	67,000
Coast Guard Reserve	11,000
Total Reserve	850,000
Other DOD Personnel					97,976

As of March 31, 2008, U.S. armed forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.^[18] Some of the largest contingents are the 142,000 military personnel in Iraq, the 56,200 in Germany (see list), the 33,122 in Japan (USFJ), 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), 31,100 in Afghanistan and approximately 9,700 each in Italy and the United Kingdom. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.

*************************************************************************************

T*****************************************************************************************

POLS 292 First Assignment Spring 2010

A critique or personal "think piece" on an article in a professional journal dealing with the U.S. military

Objectives: (a.) To further acquaint you with academic and professional journal sources of data and ideas on national defense issues. (b.) To encourage you to think critically about some research published in scholarly journals in the field of military affairs; (c.) to facilitate your writing a coherent critical essay (critique) in response to the journal article.

Steps to follow:

1. The first steps: Select one interesting, readable article on a topic related to the U.S. military affairs from one of the sources identified below. The article must come one of the sources below:
a. Parameters (from the US Army War College archives) http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/issues.htm
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/08autumn/contents.htm
b. Military Review http://www.encyclopedia.com/Military+Review/publications.aspx?pageNumber=1
c. Armed Forces and Society http://afs.sagepub.com/archive/|
The article you select should be a minimum of 7 pages. If you want to select from any other source, you must get prior approval. You must sign up for the topic and the articles that you select. The list will be available in class or on line.

2. Individualized thinking: Ask yourself why you are interested in the subject and what you expect to get from the article (or essay) you selected. Before you read the article ask yourself: What do you know and what don’t you know about the subject? What questions did you start with? Then read carefully and take notes. At that point, after you have finished the article, ask yourself what you learned, what new questions you consider most important and why you have a positive or negative reaction to the article Emphasize what you don’t know (new questions) even more than what you feel you do know about the subject.

3. Suggestions: The comparative critique is a personal think piece or reaction paper. This one should be 3-4 pages (typed and double spaced), no longer. Do not refer to the writing style of the author or the readability of the article. You must select an essay that you find readable in the first place. Your only concern in the critique should be with the substance, i.e., the content of the article. Do not summarize the articles beyond two paragraphs. React to the article thoughtfully. Discuss how the article influenced your thinking about the issue. The article should provide a point of departure or a frame of reference to express your thoughts and questions about the topic. Remember to express your tentative understanding of the topic and how show, if possible, how it relates to one or more of the concepts discussed in this course. Due date is February 9.

POLS 292 Second Assignment Spring, 2010

        A critique or think piece on two analytical articles dealing with the U.S. military
           Task: Write a comparative critique of two academic journal articles dealing with the U.S. military, defense policies, or national security that relate to one or more political concepts (such as bureaucracy, realism, diplomacy, intelligence agencies, balance of power, international law, etc.)

Steps to follow:

1. The first steps: Select two interesting, readable articles on a topic related to the U.S. military affairs from one of the sources identified below. Both articles must come the sources below:
a. Parameters (from the US Army War College archives) http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/issues.htm
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/08autumn/contents.htm
b. Military Review http://www.encyclopedia.com/Military+Review/publications.aspx?pageNumber=1
c. Armed Forces and Society http://afs.sagepub.com/archive/|
The articles you select should be a minimum of 7 pages. If you want to select from any other source, you must get prior approval. You must sign up for the topic and the articles that you select. The list will be available in class or on line.

2. Individualized thinking: Ask yourself why you are interested in the subject and what you expect to get from the articles you selected. Before you read the articles ask yourself: What do you know and what don’t you know about the subject? What questions did you start with? Then read one at a time carefully and take notes. At that point, after you have finished the articles, ask yourself what you learned, what new questions you consider most important and why you have a positive or negative reaction to the articles Emphasize what you don’t know (new questions) even more than what you feel you do know about the subject.

3. Suggestions: The comparative critique is a personal think piece or reaction paper. This one should be 3-4 pages (typed and double spaced), no longer. Do not refer to the writing style of the authors or the readability of the articles. You must select articles that you find readable in the first place. Your only concern in the critique should be with the substance, i.e., the content of the article. Do not summarize the articles beyond two paragraphs. React to the articles thoughtfully. Discuss how the articles influenced your thinking about the issue. The articles should provide a point of departure or a frames of reference to express your thoughts and questions about the topic. Remember to express your tentative understanding of the topic and how it relates to one or more of the concepts discussed in this course. Due date is March 23.

*********************************************************************************

Additional sources and issues to consider:

Conclusion of "Rumsfeld's War" and Ricks' presentation: What policy should the US have in relation to Iran?
Optional: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html?scp=2&sq=Op-Ed+&st=nyt

Sikh appeal in US military http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103119167

Obama acts against pirates http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103019472

Will US navy deter piracy? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103019475

Will Navy get recruits via reality tv? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103071893

Somali pirates and alQaeda? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103064945

North Korea walks out and gears up http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103119162

Afghanistan (reprint reading) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/opinion/13boot.html?ref=opinion
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/opinion/13Gelb.html?ref=opinion

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warbriefing/view/

http://www.truthout.org/050109WA

**************************************************************************************

After the 1986 reorganization of the military undertaken by the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not have operational command of U.S. military forces. Responsibility for conducting military operations goes from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands and thus bypasses the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely.

Today, their primary responsibility is to ensure the personnel readiness, policy, planning and training of their respective military services for the combatant commanders to utilize. The Joint Chiefs of Staff also act in an military advisory capacity for the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acts as the chief military advisor to the President and the Secretary of Defense. In this strictly advisory role, the Joint Chiefs constitute the second-highest deliberatory body for military policy, after the National Security Council, which includes the President and other officials besides the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

[edit] Current Joint Chiefs of Staff

Name	Service	Position
Admiral Michael Mullen	USN	Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General James E. Cartwright	USMC	Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
General George W. Casey, Jr.	USA	Chief of Staff of the United States Army
Admiral Gary Roughead	USN	Chief of Naval Operations
General Norton A. Schwartz	USAF	Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force
General James T. Conway	USMC	Commandant of the Marine Corps

Notes:

On 8 June 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recommended that Admiral Mike Mullen be nominated to replace General Pace when the Congressional confirmation of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff occurs in September. Secretary Gates stated that the contentious issue of the military actions in Iraq would shift "the focus of his [General Pace's] confirmation process would have been on the past rather than the future" and that the "divisive ordeal" of the reconfirmation "is not in the interest of the country."[5]

Secretary Gates also recommended on the same day that General James E. Cartwright (United States Strategic Command) be nominated as Vice-Chairman in order to preserve the "balance" of the representation of each branch of service.

The Joint Chiefs do not include the Commandant of the Coast Guard, Admiral Thad W. Allen. During peacetime, the Coast Guard is under the control of the Department of Homeland Security, whereas the other four branches are under the Department of Defense. The Coast Guard operates under the Department of the Navy during wartime.

[edit] Leadership

[edit] Chairman

Main article: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Joint Chiefs of Staff and Joint Staff

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is by law the highest ranking military officer of the United States armed forces ^[3], and the principal military adviser to the President of the United States. He leads the meetings and coordinates the efforts of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, comprising the Chairman, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chiefs of Staff of the United States Army and United States Air Force, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Commandant of the United States Marine Corps. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have offices in The Pentagon. The Chairman outranks all respective heads of each service branch ^[4] but does not have command authority over them, their service branches or the Unified Combatant Commands ^[4]. All combatant commanders receive operational orders directly from the Secretary of Defense ^[5].

Admiral Michael Mullen, USN, 17^th and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The current Chairman is Admiral Michael Mullen, USN, who began his term on 1 October 2007.

Note:

On 20 July 1942, Navy Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy became the Chief of Staff to the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy (20 July 1942–21 March 1949). He was not technically the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Leahy's office was the precursor to the post of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That post was established and first held by General of the Army Omar Bradley in 1949.

[edit] Vice Chairman

Main article: Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

General James Cartwright, USMC, 8^th and current Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (2007–).

The position of Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was created by the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986. The Vice Chairman is a four-star-general or admiral and by law the second highest ranking member of the U.S. Armed Forces (after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman presides over the meetings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He may also perform such duties as the Chairman may prescribe. It was not until the National Defense Authorization Act in 1992 that the position was made a full voting member of the JCS. [6]

The current Vice Chairman is Marine Corps General James Cartwright

[edit] Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman

Main article: Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman

Command Sergeant Major William J. Gainey, US Army, 1^st Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman (2005–2008).

Command Sgt. Maj. William J. Gainey was selected to serve as the first Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (SEAC) beginning Oct 1 2005. It was to be a newly created position established to advise the Chairman on all matters involving enlisted personnel in a joint environment.

The position of Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is currently vacant.

As the SEA to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Chairman), the SEAC will be an advisor to the Chairman on all matters concerning joint and combined total force integration, utilization, and development. Additionally, the SEAC will help develop noncommissioned officers (NCOs)-related joint professional education, enhance utilization of our senior NCOs on joint battle staffs, and support the Chairman’s responsibilities as directed.

Summarizing some key details from chapter 8 of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)’s 2007 Year Book on Armaments, Disarmament and International Security for 2005:

World military expenditure in 2006 is estimated to have reached $1204 billion in current dollars;
This represents a 3.5 per cent increase in real terms since 2005 and a 37 per cent increase over the 10-year period since 1997;
The USA, responsible for about 80 per cent of the increase in 2005, is the principal determinant of the current world trend, and its military expenditure now accounts for almost half of the world total;

SIPRI also comments on the increasing concentration of military expenditure, i.e. that a small number of countries spend the largest sums:

The 15 countries with the highest spending account for 83 per cent of the total;
The USA is responsible for 46 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4-5 per cent each.

Using SIPRI data:

High and rising world market prices of minerals and fossil fuels has also been a contributing factor in the upward trend in military expenditure, said SIPRI in their earlier 2006 report. For example, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Russia and Saudi Arabia have been able to increase spending because of increased oil and gas revenues, while Chile and Peru’s increases are resource-driven, “because their military spending is linked by law to profits from the exploitation of key natural resources.”

Also, “China and India, the world’s two emerging economic powers, are demonstrating a sustained increase in their military expenditure and contribute to the growth in world military spending. In absolute terms their current spending is only a fraction of the USA’s. Their increases are largely commensurate with their economic growth.”

In Context: US Military Spending Versus Rest of the World

When the US Fiscal Year 2009 budget request for military spending came out in early 2008, Travis Sharp and Christopher Hellman (mentioned earlier) projected the spending of other nations planned for 2008 thus allowing comparison between US military spending and the rest of the world:

Pie chart

Comparing US with others

In other words,

US military spending accounts for 48 percent, or almost half, of the world’s total military spending
US military spending is more than the next 46 highest spending countries in the world combined
US military spending is 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.
US military spending is almost 55 times the spending on the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) whose spending amounts to around $13 billion, maximum. (Tabulated data does not include four of the six, as the data only lists nations that have spent over 1 billion in the year, so their budget is assumed to be $1 billion each)
US spending is more than the combined spending of the next 45 countries.
The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Australia) spend $1.1 trillion on their militaries combined, representing 72 percent of the world’s total.
The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together account for about $205 billion or 29% of the US military budget.

Top spenders ranked (and sources)

Military spending in 2008 ($ Billions, and percent of total)
Country	Dollars (billions)	% of total	Rank
Source: U.S. Military Spending vs. the World, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, February 22, 2008 Notes: · The figure for the United States is the budget request for Fiscal Year 2009 and includes $170 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as funding for the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons activities. · All other figures are projections based on 2006, the last year for which accurate data is available. · All countries that spent over one billion per year are listed. · Due to rounding, some percentages may be slightly off. If you are viewing this table on another site, please see http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending for further details.
United States	711	48.28%	1
China	121.9	8.28%	2
Russia	70	4.75%	3
United Kingdom	55.4	3.76%	4
France	54	3.67%	5
Japan	41.1	2.79%	6
Germany	37.8	2.57%	7
Italy	30.6	2.08%	8
Saudi Arabia	29.5	2.00%	9
South Korea	24.6	1.67%	10
India	22.4	1.52%	11
Australia	17.2	1.17%	12
Brazil	16.2	1.10%	13
Canada	15	1.02%	14
Spain	14.4	0.98%	15
Turkey	11.6	0.79%	16
Israel	11	0.75%	17
Netherlands	9.9	0.67%	18
United Arab Emirates	9.5	0.65%	19
Taiwan	7.7	0.52%	20
Greece	7.3	0.50%	21
Iran	7.2	0.49%	22
Myanmar	6.9	0.47%	23
Singapore	6.3	0.43%	24
Poland	6.2	0.42%	25
Sweden	5.8	0.39%	26
Colombia	5.4	0.37%	27
Chile	4.7	0.32%	28
Belgium	4.4	0.30%	29
Egypt	4.3	0.29%	30
Pakistan	4.2	0.29%	31
Denmark	3.9	0.26%	32
Indonesia	3.6	0.24%	33
Switzerland	3.5	0.24%	34
Kuwait	3.5	0.24%	35
South Africa	3.5	0.24%	36
Oman	3.3	0.22%	37
Malaysia	3.2	0.22%	38
Mexico	3.2	0.22%	39
Portugal	3.1	0.21%	40
Algeria	3.1	0.21%	41
Finland	2.8	0.19%	42
Austria	2.6	0.18%	43
Venezuela	2.6	0.18%	44
Czech Republic	2.5	0.17%	45
Romania	2.3	0.16%	46
Qatar	2.3	0.16%	47
Thailand	2.3	0.16%	48
Morocco	2.2	0.15%	49
Argentina	1.9	0.13%	50
Ukraine	1.7	0.12%	51
Cuba	1.7	0.12%	52
Angola	1.6	0.11%	53
New Zealand	1.5	0.10%	54
Hungary	1.3	0.09%	55
Ireland	1.1	0.07%	56
Jordan	1.1	0.07%	57
Peru	1.1	0.07%	58
North Korea	n/a	n/a	59
Global Total (not all countries shown): 1,472.7		100%	n/a

Why does the US number seem so high when the budget announced $517.9 for the Department of Defense?

Unfortunately, the budget numbers can be a bit confusing. For example, the Fiscal Year budget requests for US military spending do not include combat figures (which are supplemental requests that Congress approves separately). The budget for nuclear weapons falls under the Department of Energy, and for the 2009 request, was about $29 billion.

The cost of war (Iraq and Afghanistan) is estimated to be about $170 billion for the 2009 spending alone. Christopher Hellman and Travis Sharp also discuss the US fiscal year 2009 Pentagon spending request and note that “Congress has already approved nearly $700 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $126 billion in FY'08 war funding is still pending before the House and Senate.”

Furthermore, other costs such as care for vetarans, healthcare, military training/aid, secret operations, may fall under other departments or be counted separately.

The frustration of confusing numbers seemed to hit a raw nerve for the Center for Defense Information, concluding

The articles that newspapers all over the country publish today will be filled with [military spending] numbers to the first decimal point; they will seem precise. Few of them will be accurate; many will be incomplete, some will be both. Worse, few of us will be able to tell what numbers are too high, which are too low, and which are so riddled with gimmicks to make them lose real meaning.

— Winslow T. Wheeler, What Do the Pentagon’s Numbers Really Mean? The Chaos in America’s Vast Security Budget, Center for Defense Information, February 4, 2008

In Context: US military budget vs. other US priorities

The peace lobby, the Friends Committee on National Legislation, calculates for Fiscal Year 2007 that the majority of US tax payer’s money goes towards war:

As a pie chart

Raw data and sources

	2007 (in billions of dollars)	2007 percent of federal funds budget
Source: 43% Percent of Your 2007 Taxes Go to War, Friends Committee on National Legislation, February 14, 2008
Current Military Spending	598	29%
Cost of Past Wars	282	14%
Total military percent		43%
Health Research & Services	423.7	20.5%
Responses to Poverty	255.0	12.4%
Interest on Non-Military Share of Federal Debt	226.2	11%
Government Operations	138.9	6.6%
Social Programs	59.9	2.9%
Science, Energy, & Environment	53.7	2.6%
Non-Military International Programs	29.1	1.4%

Furthermore, “national defense” category of federal spending is typically just over half of the United States discretionary budget (the money the President/Administration and Congress have direct control over, and must decide and act to spend each year. This is different to mandatory spending, the money that is spent in compliance with existing laws, such as social secuity benefits, medicare, paying the interest on the national debt and so on). For recent years here is how military, education and health budgets (the top 3) have fared:

Discretionary budgets in $ (billions) and percentages
Year	Total ($)	Defense ($)	Defense (%)	Education ($)	Education (%)	Health ($)	Health (%)
Sources and notes The link for each year takes you to that year’s source The defense budget is only the Pentagon request each Fiscal Year. It does not include nuclear weapons programs from the Department of Energy, or funding for wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
2009	997	541	54	61.9	6.2	52.7	5.3
2008	930	481.4	51.8	58.6	6.3	52.3	5.6
2007	873	460	52.7	56.8	6.5	53.1	6.1
2006	840.5	438.8	52	58.4	6.9	51	6.1
2005	820	421	51	60	7	51	6.2
2004	782	399	51	55	7	49	6.3
2003	767	396	51.6	52	6.8	49	6.4

For those hoping the world can decrease its military spending, SIPRI warns that “while the invasion [of Iraq] may have served as warning to other states with weapons of mass destruction, it could have the reverse effect in that some states may see an increase in arsenals as the only way to prevent a forced regime change.”

In this new era, traditional military threats to the USA are fairly remote. All of their enemies, former enemies and even allies do not pose a military threat to the United States. For a while now, critics of large military spending have pointed out that most likely forms of threat to the United States would be through terrorist actions, rather than conventional warfare, and that the spending is still geared towards Cold War-type scenarios and other such conventional confrontations.

[T]he lion’s share of this money is not spent by the Pentagon on protecting American citizens. It goes to supporting U.S. military activities, including interventions, throughout the world. Were this budget and the organization it finances called the “Military Department,” then attitudes might be quite different. Americans are willing to pay for defense, but they would probably be much less willing to spend billions of dollars if the money were labeled “Foreign Military Operations.”

— The Billions For “Defense” Jeopardize Our Safety, Center For Defense Information, March 9, 2000