National War Strategy
This is an excerpt from the paper...
One of the main premises of strategy is that it is hierarchical. We see this during an analysis of World War II because the United States evolved a strategy that was in keeping with another premise of strategy, that the nation-state politics and/or policies underlying strategy always dominate. When other means failed to achieve US policy, warfare became the necessary means for achieving the political/policy goals of the US during World War II. Going back to the hierarchical nature of strategy, the strategy utilized by the US was insured and maintained by breaking state strategy into three divisions: National Security Strategy; National Military Strategy; Theater Strategy. National Security Strategy is the “art and science of developing, applying and coordinating the instruments of national power to achieve objectives that contribute to national security” (Yarger 4). This level of strategy is often referred to as the grand or national strategy. National Military Strategy is how national objectives are achieved through the distribution and application of military strength in war and peace. Theater Strategy is developed under National Military Strategy and involves development of strategic concepts and action plans that are integrated so as to best achieve the goals of national or allied interests.During World War II we see many of the premises of Lykke’s war strategy employed by the United States government and US military. By analyzi
. . .
strategy is to protect national interests and values but the value system in America was divided at the time, which would greatly impact the National Military Strategy. Roosevelt’s beliefs and values, not to mention a world theater growing grimmer daily, were on one hand, and on the other were the values fairly ingrained in the majority of Americans in 1939, “…arguments for a purely hemispheric national defense appealed to Americans on several grounds. They conformed to the country’s traditional bias against a large, standing, professional army; they justified opposition to public spending for defense; and they coincided with isolationist contentions that the United States had no vital interests to protect outside of the Americas” (Kirkpatrick 467).
The hesitancy (due to policy/politics divisions) on behalf of Roosevelt to formulate a national strategy objective (ends), though he had many strong supporters, greatly impacted strategy on the National Military Strategy level. While the military was aware of the world theater situation, they were prevented from carrying out one of the primary premises of any strategy-proactive preparation. The national division over policy/politics prevented national leaders from directing the
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
War II, Military Strategy, British French, Strategy Roosevelts, Britain France, Winston Churchill, World War, Pearl Harbor, Army Current, Security Strategy, national military, military strategy, world war, national military strategy, world war ii, war ii, national strategy, theater strategy, strategy level, strategy national, formulating strategy, strategy national military, resources means, conflict national strategy, strategy theater strategy,
Approximate Word count = 1988
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
More Essays on National War Strategy
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
