Research Proposal on "President Obama's Strategy Using the U.S. Army"

Research Proposal 6 pages (1541 words) Sources: 7

[EXCERPT] . . . .

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S STRATEGY USING THE U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE STRATEGY MODEL

The objective of this work in writing is to examine the President's strategy in utilizing the AWC Strategy Model (Yarger and Barber). This work will conclude with a review of USG

Afghan-Pakistan Strategy as noted in Lesson 3.

Army War College Strategy Model uses the Blackwell criteria as follows for analysis of the effects of strategy on an interest:

(1) Immediacy in terms of time.

(2) Geographic proximity.

(3) Magnitude.

(4) "Infectious" dimensions.

(5) Connectivity -- How many links of chain of events from threat

(situation/event) to core national interest.

This follows the sorting of interests by intensity and category and it is pointed out in the work of Blackwell that "...these should be analytically independent form judgments about how important to the United States a particular national security interest is. We may choose to defend a peripheral U.S. interest because it is not costly to do so; the interest nevertheless is still peripheral. Or we may choose not to defend vigorously an important U.S. national security interest because we decide it is too expensive in a variety of ways to do so; the interest nevertheless is still important, and we may well pay dearly for our unreadiness to engage." (Yarger and Barber, 1997)

The steps include the four as follows:

First step: Determine U.S. Interests through understanding national values and the global environment and by category such as homeland defense, economic well-being, favorable world order and promotion of values;

Second Step: Identify and Asses Challenges to U.S. Interests: this includes

(a) Defense trends (threats and opportunities)

(b) Economic trends (threats and opportunities)

(c) World order trends (threats and opportunities); and (d) Promotion of values trends (threats and opportunities). (Yarger and Barber, 1997)

Third Step: Comparison to U.S. National Strategy: conduct a review and analysis as to whether assessment is in agreement or different from the present U.S. national security strategy; and Fourth Step: Recommendations for policy which are based on national diplomatic, economic and military policy that are in need of change both in the present and future to protect and to access opportunities. (Yarger and Barber, 1997, paraphrased)

III. Analysis of President Obama's Strategy

In terms of National Values/National Interests

President Obama clearly stated that "Al Qaeda and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan"

. From a national Interests standpoint - defending the U.S. clearly fits Yarger and Barber's definition of defending U.S. interests (the legal, philosophical and moral basis for continuation of our system."

Included in the strategic objectives stated by President Obama are plans for the building of roads, schools and hospitals as well as isolation of the people in Pakistan from Al Qaeda. Increasing the size of the Afghan Security forces is also noted as priority in the speech of President Obama as well as building an Afghan Army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 by 2011.

Finally, President Obama states that goals include enhancement of both intelligence and security of the Afghan Security Forces. Furthermore, President Obama states goals of assisting the government in Afghanistan to develop an economy that is free from the domination of illicit drug trade and support for Afghan elections. Training and recruitment of security forces is also noted as a goal by President Obama.

Resources noted by President Obama which will be dedicated to this effort are those as follows:

(1) $1.5 billion in direct support over the next;

(2) A Bipartisan bill that increases opportunity zones in the border region to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued by violence;

(3) Human resources for training recruitment of Afghan Security forces;

(4) Agricultural specialists, educators, engineers and lawyers;

(5) Support from Allies of the United States.

In terms of National Policy

, President Obama was clear in his 27 March speech on the "guidance and objectives adopted by the U.S. government at the national level in pursuit of [our] national interests."

Increases in both military and civilian forces in Afghanistan and an increase in aid to Pakistan

in exchange for support in the reduction in/of terrorist activity and safe havens in SWA was meticulously noted in the President's new policy.

As detailed in The U.S. Army War College Methodology for Determining Interests and Levels of Intensity (Yarger and Barber), any strategy that is developed must be in direct support of the national interests and policies of the United States. President Obama makes it clear what objectives of the United States or what 'ends' must be achieved and then points his strategy in the direction of how this objectives will be accomplished or the 'means'. Finally President Obama has stated the resources necessary to achieve the stated goals.

It can be argued that the President's March 2009 speech and subsequent policy passes this National and Military Strategy litmus test. As noted by Yarger and Barber, it is necessary in today's world that the risk involved is one which it is possible to live with and further that the ability to state the extent of that risk is necessary and critical in minimizing the potential impact of that risk. In the case that the risk is on a level that cannot be accepted it is necessary to work up a revised strategy.

IV. Analysis of Feffer (2009)

The work of John Feffer (2009)

entitled: "Obama's First 100 Days: Foreign Policy" relates that the way that the U.S. deals with the world has been drastically changed by the Bush administration as it has "invaded two countries, began a war on terror that had no geographic or time limits, boosted military spending, acted unilaterally and ignored international law." (Feffer, 2009)

However, President Obama made the promise that foreign policy would be handled in a more diplomatic way and would be aligned with international law and institutions.

Feffer (2009) notes the increase of 70% of the U.S. military budget by the Bush administration and this during a period in which the federal government is seeking ways to stabilize and stimulate the economy. Feffer states that a "perfect target for reduction" would be "the Pentagon budget" as the present U.S. military spending is in excess of $700 billion annually.

However, Feffer notes that the new administration budget released shows that the Pentagon received a raise with $20 billion more requested for military spending over the 2009 budget allocation of Congress.

While President Obama is noted by Feffer to have corrected foreign policy wrongs nevertheless the Obama administration is stated to have "backed a 'surge' in U.S. troops in Afghanistan" as well as putting great effort in the attempt to persuade "its NATO allies to also increase troops levels." (2009)

Furthermore, the United States is continuing its arms sales to Indonesia, Israel and Colombia as part of an overall counterterrorism approach." (Feffer, 2009) Because of theses actions the United States has continued its use of terrorism "as a justification for the maintenance of a worldwide network of military bases, a set of alliances sustained by a high level of military assistance, and a set of strategic relationships with often unsavory regimes around the world." (Feffer, 2009)

V. Summary & Conclusion

The writer of this work tends to agree with the assessment of Feffer (2009) in that the Obama administration has in many ways continued with the self-same strategic policy as utilized by the Bush administration. While President Obama has made a good show of making changes in the way that the United States addresses foreign policy in reality those changes are full of fluff and contain little in the way of substance in that military spending has been increased at a rate higher than that of inflation. As noted by Feffer (2009) there has been great disappointment… READ MORE

How to Reference "President Obama's Strategy Using the U.S. Army" Research Proposal in a Bibliography

Related Research Proposals:

Strategy: How Relevant Is Counterinsurgency Doctrine Essay

Strategy: How Relevant is counterinsurgency doctrine to the "war on terrorism"?

Counterinsurgency or COIN can be defined as the sum total of the political, military, paramilitary, economic, civic and psychological… read more

Essay 8 pages (2706 words) Sources: 20 Style: Harvard Topic: Military / Army / Navy / Marines

---

What Factors Affects the US President Foreign Policy Decision-Making Process About Iran Research Paper

U.S. President Foreign Policy Decision Making Process About Iran?

President Foreign Policy Decision Making Process is a lucrative feature that ensures maintenance of security and stability of many organs of… read more

Research Paper 25 pages (8528 words) Sources: 35 Topic: Government / Politics

---

Strategy for Peace Essay

Peace Strategy

A Strategy for Peace

America's global strategy for security, defense and diplomatic interaction is highly complex and today, increasingly contingent upon the implications of globalization. With the deconstruction… read more

Essay 4 pages (1315 words) Sources: 4 Topic: Military / Army / Navy / Marines

---

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East Term Paper

U.S. Foreign Policy and the Middle East

Just as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor forced United States into World War II, the attack on the World Trade Center during… read more

Term Paper 3 pages (956 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: American History / United States

---

Narrative of 2010 National Security Strategy Essay

Narrative of 2010 National Security Strategy

Security Strategy 2010 -- Perspectives

The National Security Strategy is from afar the most important document which encompasses the main principles, guidelines, and strategies… read more

Essay 5 pages (1659 words) Sources: 5 Topic: Military / Army / Navy / Marines

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>