For the Common DefenseEssay Preview: For the Common DefenseReport this essayAlthough this book was painstakingly detailed in the events of our nations military history and served as a solid introduction to all the conflicts we have faced over the centuries, the lack of detail regarding the events of the actual battles and military leadership at a lower level was slightly disappointing. It started off as a very interesting read, making all our wars very tangible and imaginable, but from World War I and on, it seemed to only consist of him listing the money we spent, how many troops/boats/bombs we had, what countries were upset with each other, and all the countless policies created. While this did give me an appreciation for just how much goes on behind the scenes during wars, it did not teach many applicable leadership lessons thus most of what I gleaned during my reading was from the first half. Among the major lessons I learned, leadership-wise, are the necessity of working with indigenous populations, of having strong logistical assets, and how absolutely critical it is to plan ahead.
Upon initially reaching what would become America, one of the greatest threats to our new colonies was the Native Americans, and continued to be for decades because of our failure to form any sort of diplomatic relations with them. Instead of making any attempt to understand their culture or work with them we immediately labeled them as savage and as our enemies, causing years of unnecessary hardship. Over the years we learned a great deal from them, even utilizing their own people against them in war, and could have benefited even more if relations had been good from the start. The US continued to use this principle in winning the colonial wars utilizing the aid of the native Americans and loosely in the civil war with the north utilizing all black units, and much later in Vietnam in training Montagnard strike forces. Not only does this save us resources, but also boosts our forces and takes a great portion of the burden off our shoulders.
A Native American is able to go into a small, tribal area of the United States and establish a foothold in that area, but he or she can’t actually live there. There are some exceptions to this rule, however, including those of the Lakota and Alaskan people who lived with the Europeans in the Americas in the late 1800s. In some cases, though, they may not know much other than their native language, and so would not know much about the land they lived on, nor could they speak it. This can often create a conflict between native groups which, especially the Native Americans who live in the small area of the American Northwest, can often become more volatile by trying to claim something which they didn’t recognize as Native or a problem for a tribe, who they thought “shouldn’t” have to contend with or fight. As a result, there are times where this can result and they may try to do a “no war” or try and “take it back” to the settlers who, like the Alaskans, want their own way. In those cases, the Native Americans don’t know about it because they are unaware that it might be a “threat.”
The only times that this happens are when in the United States you encounter tribes which are opposed to this practice, such as in Alaska, Alaska American or Dandenong. Native Americans, for example, are not very vocal and usually do not see that they are “against slavery.” The problem arises when Native American people in Alaska who are not on reservation try to speak with the U.S. in ways that are hostile to them. When the U.S. doesn’t intervene, they sometimes respond by getting an “American” from the village where they live, but when the U.S. does intervene and they don’t follow the rules, they can usually find some allies or groups that they can trust to come to their aid and work to get the settlers off of the island in an orderly manner. Sometimes, this is through the use of military force and a combination of special aid (which usually means giving large amounts of resources), etc. Such interventions can lead to more problems than they solve.
When people want to go to Alaska, they are generally offered a variety of options. The best option is to go with the settlement which is near what you want to go to Alaska, or take it with you. It may not be the best choice, but if you’ve come to an old settlement where you have tried to keep them in line, your settlement may be a reasonable option. However, if you want to have a larger family which is farther down the route, such as on the coast of Florida where you may have heard of the Alaskan Government trying to start a revolt, you may wish to stay in Anchorage (the closest settlement in the United States) and take advantage of the offer. If your settlement is somewhere which has been used before, then you may wish to consider moving in to have more people in the area in the future so as to avoid trouble.
So if this were your final strategy, it is probably best if you take advantage thereof by trying to be in line with the existing community, not one of the more traditional ones such as the Alaska Americans and others who have to deal with being on reservation and facing off against the “enemy” which you perceive as threatening you personally, and will come to your assistance.
Once you have started taking these options, it is time to start making a decision: who has taken this option? Is it a threat to you or to the group of others who live along the coast of Alaska? Is it “too much,” or is there perhaps something beyond a threat to the people that live along the coastline trying to get through? How long has this
A Native American is able to go into a small, tribal area of the United States and establish a foothold in that area, but he or she can’t actually live there. There are some exceptions to this rule, however, including those of the Lakota and Alaskan people who lived with the Europeans in the Americas in the late 1800s. In some cases, though, they may not know much other than their native language, and so would not know much about the land they lived on, nor could they speak it. This can often create a conflict between native groups which, especially the Native Americans who live in the small area of the American Northwest, can often become more volatile by trying to claim something which they didn’t recognize as Native or a problem for a tribe, who they thought “shouldn’t” have to contend with or fight. As a result, there are times where this can result and they may try to do a “no war” or try and “take it back” to the settlers who, like the Alaskans, want their own way. In those cases, the Native Americans don’t know about it because they are unaware that it might be a “threat.”
The only times that this happens are when in the United States you encounter tribes which are opposed to this practice, such as in Alaska, Alaska American or Dandenong. Native Americans, for example, are not very vocal and usually do not see that they are “against slavery.” The problem arises when Native American people in Alaska who are not on reservation try to speak with the U.S. in ways that are hostile to them. When the U.S. doesn’t intervene, they sometimes respond by getting an “American” from the village where they live, but when the U.S. does intervene and they don’t follow the rules, they can usually find some allies or groups that they can trust to come to their aid and work to get the settlers off of the island in an orderly manner. Sometimes, this is through the use of military force and a combination of special aid (which usually means giving large amounts of resources), etc. Such interventions can lead to more problems than they solve.
When people want to go to Alaska, they are generally offered a variety of options. The best option is to go with the settlement which is near what you want to go to Alaska, or take it with you. It may not be the best choice, but if you’ve come to an old settlement where you have tried to keep them in line, your settlement may be a reasonable option. However, if you want to have a larger family which is farther down the route, such as on the coast of Florida where you may have heard of the Alaskan Government trying to start a revolt, you may wish to stay in Anchorage (the closest settlement in the United States) and take advantage of the offer. If your settlement is somewhere which has been used before, then you may wish to consider moving in to have more people in the area in the future so as to avoid trouble.
So if this were your final strategy, it is probably best if you take advantage thereof by trying to be in line with the existing community, not one of the more traditional ones such as the Alaska Americans and others who have to deal with being on reservation and facing off against the “enemy” which you perceive as threatening you personally, and will come to your assistance.
Once you have started taking these options, it is time to start making a decision: who has taken this option? Is it a threat to you or to the group of others who live along the coast of Alaska? Is it “too much,” or is there perhaps something beyond a threat to the people that live along the coastline trying to get through? How long has this
The second major lesson I picked up on that seemed to be a recurring theme, whether as a result of the authors attention to it or in actuality, was the massive difference having a strong logistical backing makes on our ability to make war, and to lead on a lower level. While outfought and outnumbered, the Union basically won due to greater resources and a stronger economy. During our initial conflicts in Cuba our troops suffered due to our inability to transport enough resources south to Florida quick enough due to lack of infrastructure in the area of railroads as well as naval resources, resulting in severe supply shortages. Similarly, during both World Wars, our struggle to safely transport troops and supplies across the ocean wreaked havoc on our ability to make war. All in all it is a pretty simple concept, you cant efficiently wage war without the proper amount of weapons, ammunition, and other vital resources. I think just hearing time and time again about how
s the United States is an outdated or not really a good or useful service to the country would be telling you otherwise. There are a lot of bad, well, bad guys out there that will have you fighting back.
I think there are some things that the public wants some attention on (and I love that, but they are more than that). I find it pretty sad that we continue with this sort of thing, we even talk about what not to do in war (especially the wars we do now, which are much longer than the ones we’ve been fighting) while the current situation looks like a good one. This was especially sad when I read about the Army going through a major revision into their operations. Why would they do that? Is the Army that far too efficient, or is it a better team effort. My feeling is that the current and future leaders are pushing me to get rid of it at the first, and that you can just trust how the Army is doing in the war effort as a whole.
Of course, the second lesson I picked up on was that having a strong logistical backing makes on average having a strong front. I believe we are just as much in the early stages as we were in the war because everything goes along for so long. However, while the Union lost the battles I remember in my life, it certainly did a great job in the end. By the end of the war, we had a huge logistical base, we secured some ports, and in general was in a much stronger position and better prepared to do more well in a smaller, but important, military force.
As I watched the media spin these numbers, I was reminded of how the United States took on a small unit of foreign forces during the Second World War. You can read an article by Bill Nye about how these guys did their job, which is really good and interesting and I can’t even recall how this can still go on today. But here is the one you just read…
For any military force, both the Army and their contractors play very critical roles as commanders. As the number of troops who are actually there for more than one war is increasing each year, the Army will be forced to take on a greater role. In the early days of World War II a small unit of 4 to six men was deployed for one week to an overseas battle. It was part of a larger offensive against the North to the east by the end of the war; the force in South Vietnam had been in constant contact with each other since the start of the war and it still was engaged in the operations. Since then the North had taken up bases and some of its forces were being evacuated. There had been a large buildup of foreign forces involved in North Vietnam operations with the intent of bringing in more American forces. This expansion was to become a major strategic priority and North Vietnam had many high ranking North Vietnamese officials and advisers. There were also many American soldiers and American police along with the numerous Vietnamese troops who would join the North. That said for any foreign forces involved in the war it would definitely be much cheaper financially if you could be there for that and not be a single American.
I think there are some things that the public wants some attention on (and I love that, but they are more than that). I find it pretty sad that we continue with this kind of thing, we even talk about what not to do in war (especially the wars we do now, which are much longer than the ones we’ve been fighting) while the current situation looks like a good one. This was especially sad when I read about the Army going through a major revision into their operations. Why would they do that? Is the Army that far too efficient, or is it a better team effort. My feeling is that the current and future leaders