Elements of Defense

Elements of Defense

Author

Institution

The defense policy has several elements; one of the elements is peace and security. The American government uses the defense policy in protecting its citizens and its borders. As it seeks to protect the borders, the defense policy ensures that there is a prevalence of peace in other countries. The defense policy believes in the use of diplomacy in achieving peace and security within the borders of the United States (Bolt et al, 2005). Justice constitutes another element of the defense policy. The United States uses the defense policy in ensuring that justice is followed; justice is usually followed by adhering to the set laws both nationally and internationally regarding human rights. Therefore, the element of justice is ensured by the defense policy through guarding the human rights and international law. People are also a critical element of the defense policy; the defense policy ensures that it puts into a consideration humanistic element in its functioning. Therefore, the defense policy ensures that the United States considers the education, health, and human rights of others. This element relates to the humanistic assistance, which is also another element of the defense policy. According to the defense policy, assistance and protection needs to be offered to individuals affected by war and natural disaster. According to this element, human life is precious and needs to be guarded at any particular time, when in danger of war or natural disasters. Economic growth is another element of the defense policy. According to this element, the defense policy should seek to help in promoting development in the entire globe and enhance the economic status of the United States and other countries (Bolt et al, 2005). Besides, promotion of understanding constitutes another element of the defense policy. The defense policy ensures that there is an understanding between different groups such as religious groups. Through the promotion of understanding, the defense policy promotes peaceful coexistence between individuals and groups, and ensures protection of their rights.

The scope of the government legalizes the government to conduct its role as specified by the constitution. The national security policy increases the scope of the government since it is sometimes forced to expand its role and conduct activities beyond its national scope. One of the ways that the national security policy has expanded the scope of the government entails the determination of policies that can help in ending war in other countries. The U.S. government has the role of acting within the provisions of the constitution on matters pertaining to the issues affecting the nation and its citizens. When there is war in other countries, the government expands its scope since it is involved in formulating policies that can help in terminating the war amicably. This is an international scope, which is more than the national scope of the government. In matters pertaining to security, war in certain nations is likely to cause a threat to security in other nations, which affects the relationship between nations. The threat to security also affects the productivity of nations; therefore, the intervention of the U.S government is critical in ensuring that it determines policies that aid in ending wars that emerge in other countries. This helps in maintaining peace internationally.

Apart from engaging in terminating wars that emerge in other countries, the scope of the U.S. government is expanded, when it comes to matters pertaining to the establishment and development of illegal groups that become a threat to the international peace. Whenever these groups emerge, they cause war or become a threat to security leading to the thwarting of international peace. Take, for instance, the Al-Qaida terrorist group; the group is a threat not only to the United States, but to the international peace. The national security policy expands the scope of the U.S. government in eradicating such groups that are a threat to the international peace and security. The U.S. government partners with other nations in formulating policies that get rid of these groups; this is an expanded scope since it deals with not only national, but also international matters.

Besides, the scope of the government is expanded, when it engages other countries having differences in diplomacy. Sometimes, countries may have issues affecting them, which can lead to disintegration of peace between countries. In such instances, the U.S. government can use diplomacy in resolving the deepening relationship between countries. Through intervening in the affairs of such countries, the U.S government helps the countries in resolving conflicts that may be in existence, which is a vital aspect of maintaining international peace and security. The intervention of the U.S. government in resolving the conflicts that are beyond its borders is an indication of an expanded scope since it involves the international community.

On the other hand, the national security policy leads to an expanded scope of the government through the government offering economic and military support to other sovereign countries. There are those countries that do not have resources to help them in eliminating issues affecting them; the U.S. government may assist such countries in eliminating such issues by providing economic and military support (Jordan, 2009). For instance, the U.S. government can offer military assistance to a sovereign country in order to help it in ending successfully in a war. Further, the government can offer economic assistance to help a country recover from war. Such intervention is beyond the national scope, which implies that it expands the scope of the government.

Defense policy experts have suggested some reforms in the United States military. One of the reforms suggested concerns the earning of the NCO title. Newly commissioned officers usually face the criticism of earning the title of NCO without undergoing any NCO training. Experts suggest that reforms should be considered so as to have professional NCO corps. A problem noted in the U.S. military is that junior recruited usually become promoted too fast. It is suggested that normal promotion to E-2 must be after one satisfying year in service; this is double of what is today’s requirement. Besides, it is also suggested that normal promotion to E-3 must be considered after a soldier satisfactorily completes two years in service. In the mean time, a promotion to E-2 requires a satisfactory service of about 10-12 months (Nielsen, 2010). On the other hand, since promotion to E-4 currently takes 2-3 years, but it is suggested to occur at the conclusion of the initial four year enlistment for a GIs graduate. Therefore, attendance of a formal NCO school is suggested a must for junior soldiers, who desire to be promoted. Sending of all E-3s chosen for reenlistment in a formal NCO school is likely not to cost more if promotion time becomes slowed because lower-ranking GIs are usually paid less. Also, the military will not waste resources sending junior GIs to different short term leadership schools unless they sign papers enlisting them in the reserves or active force. According to the suggested reform, NCO school must become essential for promotions to E-4. This change is likely to improve the morale and quality of the recruited force. All troops; that is, E-1/ E-2 / E-3 need to be called seamen or private, and all NCOs need to have clear titles and leadership chevrons.

Another proposed reform in the U.S. military concerns transformation of the army and assigning 2% of the military manpower to the basic mission of defending the country at the border from invasion. Recollecting from the 9/11 attacks, Americans became shocked by the killing of 3000 citizens. Since then, the number of Americans killed by illegal aliens has increased. As the United States restrict visas to certain individuals, tracks international terrorists, and tightens port security, the future terrorists are likely to walk across the loosely guarded border. Placing soldiers on the border needs orders from the president, but also needs proposals from Army Generals. The Generals keep on spreading myths such as; it is not possible to stop illegal immigration and the U.S. army does not have resources for border troops. These myths by Generals lead to unguarded borders. Therefore, according to the experts’ suggestions, there is a need for border patrols. Guarding remote regions of the border constitutes a tough mission, which implies that guarding remote border points is a problem for the military. However, the experts suggest that the number of troops guarding the border points need to be increased so as to ensure enough security in the country as there will be enough troops on the borders to restrict aliens from entry; assigning 2% of the military manpower on the borders is suggested as a way of ending alien invasion (Nielsen, 2010).

Another proposed change targeting to reform the United States military constitutes the elimination of 17-year old soldiers. The current requirement in order to become enlisted as a soldier, requires a person to have a range of 17-34 years. However, experts are arguing that considering 17 year old individuals eligible for the position of a soldier is wrong because he is still a minor. As the military is evolving into a more professional and mature force, the practice of recruiting child soldiers should stop. From a legal perspective, it can be deemed as irresponsible for the American military to recruit minors, who sleep in open barracks and take showers together with adults. Besides, the law does not require minors to engage in contracts, but the recruitment of 17 year old soldiers implies that the U.S. government makes contracts with minors who end up serving in the military. Because of the dangers involved in dealing with a minor and the need to develop a mature military force, it is suggested that the government should focus on changing the recruitment of 17-year old persons in the military and make 18 years the proper age requirement for the enlistment of solders (Nielsen, 2010).

In addition, experts also suggest that there should be unifying of ROTC. Training of fresh officers in the military is wasteful and expensive. The cost of operating three service academies is exceedingly high. Nevertheless, ROTC is also wasteful and needs trimming; especially small programs that have as many full time personnel as officers they commission every year. Officers in the small units feel the pressure of lowering standards in improving the size of their cadet organizations, which is demoralizing. Efforts of eliminating small ROTC programs are usually killed by Congressmen. Therefore, in an attempt to alleviate the cost of operating the three academies, experts suggest that all the three ROTC programs be combined (Nielsen, 2010).

Conclusion

The defense policy is exceedingly vital emanating from the elements that it has; the elements of the policy aids in solving various issues that affect the security in the U.S. and other countries. These elements include: peace and security, humanistic assistance, justice, people, promotion of understanding, and economic growth. Through the maintenance of these elements, the defense policy ensures that there is maintenance and prevalence of peace. This constitutes a vital aspect of human coexistence. The scope of the government is vital in ensuring that the government carries its role well. The national security policy expands the scope of the government since the government not only plays a national role, but also an international role. For instance, the national security policy expands the scope of the government in dealing with issues of terrorism; terrorism is not just taken as a national issue, but also as an international problem. Experts have suggested some reforms in the U.S. military. Such suggestions include the combination of all the three ROTC programs, changing the recruitment of 17-year old persons in the military, and assigning 2% of the military manpower on the borders.

References

Bolt, P. J., Coletta, D. V., & Shackelford, C. G. (2005). American defense policy. Baltimore, Md. [u.a.: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Nielsen, S. C. (2010). An army transformed: The U.S. Army’s post-Vietnam recovery and the dynamics of change in military organizations. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.

Jordan, A. A. (2009). American national security. Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press.