Abstract
Generally the American people have been having a love-hate relationship with war. On one hand, the military has been approaching war with intentions of acquiring military victory (Millett, 1984).
The military leaders have been shying away from the complicated approach of turning military triumphs into strategic successes. Instead they have opted to concentrate on conquering campaigns and battles while the policy makers have focused their attention in diplomatic struggles that influence or are influenced by the actual military fighting.
On the other hand, a number of military scholars argue that Americans involvement in history’s “small wars” such as the Boxer rebellion and the contemporary intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia were well intentioned (Murray, 1996).
America got involved in these small wars, not with an intention of acquiring decisive victory over her opponents but for the purposes of providing protection and inflicting punishment to the offenders. The America way of war thus seems to appear like the proverbial coin, with two sides. On one side it wages war with hatred while on the other side it does so with love for the concerned nations.
Introduction
In the United States military history, modeling is defined as functional, descriptive or physical representations of systems (Millett, 1984). The representations may occur in the forms of logical algorithms, mathematical equations, three dimensional digital images or even as partial physical mock-up of the entire system.
In addition, the models also refer to the decision making process and the automated data processing which occur within the battle field computers and inside the human brain. Among the systems, military weapons systems usually include air, land and sea vehicles, hand-held weapons, communication equipment and the individual soldiers.
The models also cover areas of environment representation such as the vegetation, terrain, the atmosphere, ocean and the cultural features. All these different combinations that compose the model are useful for the purposes of accurately representing potential military situations (Murray, 1996).
The military officers have categorized the use of the models into three large application groups. The first group is for use in development, research and acquisition. In this kind of applications, models provide an insight into the performance and cost of military processes, equipment or missions that have been put in place for future use (Murray, 1996). This group of model uses scientific inquiry to come up with new facts or for revising the existing ones. Once approved the discoveries are then transformed into physical representation.
The second category is based on exploring advanced requirements and concepts. This category of model presents military situations and models in a way that gives the military an opportunity to conduct trade studies and concept explorations into alternatives (Millett, 1984).
The trade studies in many occasions explore multiple variations on new weapons and tactics; they also try to examine the effectiveness of each of them. This model may be used for the purposes of understanding physical equipments or weapons, but could also be used to explore the various processes for organizing and carrying out a mission.
It calls for a sober understanding of the processes and interactions that exist between the various steps in the processes. The model is also helpful to the military in creating operations doctrines, selection of acquisition materials and in internal organization construction (Murray, 1996).
The third model is made up of education, training and military operations. Using this model the military staff is stimulated with specific military scenario. The main goal is to determine the extent to which the military staff has learned execution of the doctrines they have been taught.
It also provides them with an opportunity of experimenting with new ideas and determining how such ideas could be useful in a real warfare situation. All this is done within controlled and secure environments which are free from life threatening situations that are a characteristic of a real combat operation.
The American military modeling has been in existent for many years and is evident today in the comparison of the realistic three-dimensional military education and training systems (Murray, 1996).
The American army, for instance provides its staff with an environment for experimentation and training, a tool for enhancing Army recruitment education on military lifestyle and as a game for use for anyone in need of excitement in their leisure time. The three models can be represented in very many ways but the commonly used approaches in presenting military missions and systems include engineering, constructive, virtual, and live and environment.
The American military created policies and goals in order to achieve an enduring army that is enabled by sustainable operations, systems, installations and communities. The set goals help in ensuring that all the military operations are self sustainable. They also act as a link between the military objectives and the required actions for the success of all the laid operations.
However, the American military policies and goals have been in a state turmoil for the past fifteen years. The goals have greatly changed and as a result stability has being given the highest priority among the military policies. The military has undergone great evolution with intentions of creating stability in its forces, expenditure and in its concepts. These changes contrast greatly with the previous military policy which has been constant conflict and change (Murray, 1996).
The American military policy has been evolving through a war to peace to war cycle. Previously America has been responding to war after sensing danger. The country has been using its military officer in times of war, only after ensuring that there is a serious danger to its citizens. This kind of war preparation has caused the country to lose all the fruits associated with war victory (Murray, 1996).
However the nation has learnt that it would be hard to anticipate the course of war if the changing relationships among the international actors were the only factors to be considered in influencing changes for the future. The military forces have therefore started to realize that they are living in a transitional era which uses machine and information. This has therefore altered war preparedness within the military and has completely changed its way of fighting.
The current military preparations are geared towards decreasing domestic civil disturbances. The soldiers are trained using very flexible systems so as to learn without a lot of struggle and at the same time they are also taught the military doctrines which advocate for respect to human life.
America has learnt from its previous war experiences, which have shown that the modern technologies have greatly changed the dynamics of war. The country has therefore started altering its fighting ways so as to stay ahead of the potential enemies. The military has started to use current technological weapons and techniques in training its soldiers.
The changes in the U.S military policies and goals have also been influenced by the current technological changes. Simulation technology, for instance, has now become a main strategic capability for the U.S military. The commercial simulations have created a dramatic effect on military’s training and education programs. In addition the military has also in cooperated simulations and war gaming within the curriculum of each war college and into every commander-in-chief head quarter’s operations.
On the other hand the commercial entertainment and the World Wide Web technology provide relevant innovative techniques for enabling staff and students to work as a team in very complex virtual environments (Murray, 1996). This has enabled the current generation of soldiers to become accustomed with the internet in order to take advantage of the powerful multimedia capabilities and graphics.
Conclusion
American military has remarkably been consistent in how it has been choosing to go for war. Through the various models the American military has effectively managed to inherit the ability to translate industrial capacity, technological innovations and national wealth into very effective battlefield advantages (Millett, 1984). However in this current era of limited wars, the military has also shifted towards utilizing limited means too.
The lives of its soldiers have become the most precious resources thus it is increasingly seeking to develop war methods that will replace manpower expenditure with the expenditure of firepower. The American military is also changing its war preparation approach. It has moved from the traditional “wait and see” approach toward a modern technological approach (Murray, 1996). The military training are now accompanied by current technological weapons and games in order to ensure the country is well secured.
References
Millett, A.R. & Maslowski, P.R (1984). For the common defense: a military history of the United States of America. New York, NY: Free press foundation.
Murray, H.Y.,Williamson, B.M. & Allan, R. M.(1996) Military Innovation in the Interwar Period. Millitary operations, 18(5), 145-152.