Define A State And Discuss Where States Are Still Relevant Or Irrelevant. C203 Essays Example

Directions. Elaborate answers using depth and content in your own words. Paragraph format for each question, no plagiarism. Although citation is not required, referencing will likely strengthen your answers. Answers must be doubled spaced.
The military is an instrument of national power. Pick two other instruments of national power and briefly describe them. Give at least two examples of each. (D.I.M.E.) C203
The diplomatic element of power is one of many instruments for which the United States executes our nation’s policy through political means. This power allows our country to engage with other states and foreign groups to advance our values, objectives, and interests to gain our country’s support for armed operations.
United States diplomacy allows our coalition to organize with other alliances to include states and non-state entities by using power of persuasion to inspire other nations to agree with our national security policy. Sometimes our diplomacy relies on support of national power. Some examples of diplomatic power are: 1) the United States removing military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and 2) the United States’ implementation of economic sanctions against the Russian Federation after its illegal occupation of Crimea during the 2014 Ukraine conflict.
Another element of national power is information, which has evolved throughout the years, allowing our forces to organize and be successful in a joint environment. Allowing our armed forces to advance in the technology arena gives us an advantage in combat operations (e.g. Afghanistan and Iraq). Giving combatant commanders as well as national leaders the ability to increase their situational awareness on the battlefield increases their involvement in conflicts around the world. However, information is sometimes viewed as an instrument that has helped shape our national will towards strategies and global perceptions. Essentially, this allows our national leaders to respond to world events.
Two examples of informational power are: 1) the United States using a wearable technology system to assist soldiers and support staff personnel by providing “real-time medical and physiological data with computer models” (Nealon 2014); and 2) the United States’ use of technological monitoring of domestic and foreign people and activities in order to obtain real-time information and effectively use it to gain strategic and tactical advantages.
One “end” defined in the National Security Strategy is the security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners. A means associated with this end is U.S. nuclear forces. Explain at least one way that U.S. nuclear forces will be used to achieve this end (refer to the QDR 2014, Section II, The Defense Strategy). C204 (Pg 14) 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review
One way that the U.S. will use nuclear force to achieve this end would be to disrupt and deny adversary cyber operations that could cause a threat towards the United States’ interests. To successfully accomplish this means to an end, our country must conduct effective cyber operations in unknown territories as directed. However, cyber operations typically pose unique challenges and opportunities. Challenges arise in the sense of protecting our network infrastructure, which can sometimes be overlooked due to the limited understanding of the potential implications and effects. This can then impact our prospective defensive, offensive and stability operations.
In order for our combatant or non-commanders to conduct effective cyber operations with other states, there must be DIME instruments in place. This will allow NATO countries to better understand our strategic goals in support of State or non-State actors. However, opportunities that are involved also require a great deal of adaptation and consistent, ongoing awareness regardless of our domain.
Using QDR 2014 excerpt you read (Reading C202RB) regarding the future security environment, choose the most significant threat, challenge and opportunity and explain your rationale for choosing each.

ANSWER.

As mentioned in C202RB, with ongoing involvement in various global engagements, the United States is likely to experience numerous threats, challenges and opportunities. A prime example of these themes would be our involvement in protecting our homeland from terrorist threats.
Opportunity: Collaborating with allies around the world has helped the U.S. gain some prominent successes against global threats. Our relationship with other countries has been greatly increased, due to the ongoing threat of terrorism increased (e.g. Madrid Train Bombing in 2004). Despite our continuing challenges and accomplishments, the battle is far from over. In a rather unique way, we successfully eliminated many leadership members of Iraq and Afghanistan – partially due to identifying the most wanted on ‘terrorist playing cards’ – which allowed us to deplete their previously substantial cadre.
Further, thanks to our substantial intelligence operations, we now have a very good understanding of the intent of terrorist forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, which keeps them within our forefront as we anticipate their next move by collecting, analyzing and acting on solid intelligence. Yet, our ability to meet challenges such as these, which are both old (and completely transformed) as well as previously unseen, it is important to cooperate with other like-minded nations. While some of our prospective allies may not have the resources we possess, and may suffer from overtly influential forces within their own geographical and political regions, it is essential to establish and maintain these allies. With essential diplomacy and patience over the span of months or even years, the necessary transformation and combining of efforts with these countries is important. Although the combination of culture and diverse capabilities may be challenging, it is necessary to convert resources from merely local enforcement of the law to those who operate on a national level. The more thoroughly we do that, the more clearly we’ll visualize potential threats.

The specific definition of a state is multifaceted. Although a state is typically referred to as a geographically-bound area, it can also be used to refer to a specific government over a population of permanent residents that has the unique capacity to relate to other states and countries. Essentially, whether or not states are still relevant is somewhat subjective. Some might feel that a state is irrelevant due to its inability to keep up with powerful economic forces. However, my view is different. I believe that states are still highly relevant, because they have a verifiable ability to influence the path their respective economic forces take.
At a basic level, countries rely greatly on states to create employment and provide community safety nets while globalization is occurring. In the United States, the country (federal government) relies greatly on the states to perform a majority of the governmental functions that American citizens enjoy, including: police action, domestic relations adjudication and enforcement, local taxation, and both interstate and intrastate commerce. Without these vital functions, the U.S. would be unable to function as a ‘united’ whole, with the federal government being overburdened by the sheer numbers of citizens spread across such vast geographical regions. While global state-country relations are not as well defined, the truth remains that smaller ‘states’ are a necessary evil for the successful operation of a globally relevant country.

For what purpose does the Geographic CCDR conduct a Strategic Estimate?

The Geographic CCDR’s strategic estimate is, essentially, a tool used to assist in both the design and development of necessary campaign plans, theater strategy, and any subordinate campaign (or OPLANs). The purpose of these estimates is to focus strategy to achieve the specific end states for a theater, acting as a type of ‘bridge’. This allows for the information obtained to be used in the formation of vital ends, the ways and means used to obtain the ends, and any associated risk. Strategic estimates allow for real-time assessments of all essential information in a specific area, allowing for more succinctly informed – and, therefore, effective – decisions.
Describe how the geographic combatant commander translates the strategic guidance and direction contained in either the GEF or JSCP into planning for theater strategy.
The GEF – or Guidance For Employment of the Force – is an essential tool for CCDRs to plan for theater strategies. The information in a GEF contains vital information for planning these strategies, including both strategic endstates (for planning campaigns) and assumptions. The GEF also contains planning for nuclear weapons and any necessary or possible contingencies. Finally, the GEF provides essential information with respect to global posture and the management of forces.
After review of the information contained in the GEF, the geographic combatant commander must effectively translate the guidance and direction therein to provide a much clearer relationship between strategy and operations or activities. Utilizing the information provided, the CCDR must determine how best to implement the theater strategies with the assistance of supporting commanders. Use of the GEF allows CCDRs a two-year direction for operational plans, management of the force, dedicated security cooperation, and necessary posture planning.

Define strategy and discuss how it informs planning.

In its most basic form, strategy is truly defined as a plan – including action and/or policy – which has been designed by the writer or strategist to achieve or attain an overall goal. However, military strategy is more specific, with a definition of the ‘art’ of essential planning and direction of the overall operation and movement of military forces in war (or battle). Theater strategy is a somewhat broad overall statement of a commander’s vision (in the long-term sense) for their specific AOR.
Strategy informs planning because it helps to clarify and focus all of the resources and efforts, in order to effectively lessen and prepare if necessary for any contingencies and/or conflict within the CCDRs AOR. This also helps to support and advance any U.S. interests, as applicable and necessary, with the support and cooperation of security activities, and force posture. Once a theater strategy has been published, it may provide essential guidance for any subordinates and support command or agency, as well as assist in the improvement of coordinating with other agencies and departments in both federal and regional capacities.

Describe how Crisis Action Planning differs from Deliberate Planning.

Crisis Action Planning (or CAP) is prepared during potentially spur-of-the-moment crises, which may come with little or no warning at all, and may involve one area or multiple areas at once. The CAP covers all activities related to quickly-developed OPORDs for any potential needs of deploying, employing, and even sustaining forces (that may be assigned or attached) and may result in military operations, as an ends.
Deliberate Planning is preparing plans during a situation that is not a crisis (non-crisis). This type of planning is used to effectively develop a campaign and necessary contingency plans for a wide range of activity, with a basis of identified requirements as established in GEFs, JSCPs, and related directives. The underlying heavily-relied on assumptions contained in deliberate planning are those regarding what circumstances will exist when crises arise.
The main difference between CAP and deliberate planning is the fact that CAPs must be developed rapidly, sometimes with little or no warning, whereas deliberate planning is (and should be) prepared during non-crisis situations. While deliberate planning may be more in-depth and comprehensive – due to the obvious advantage of more time and consideration for preparation – CAPs may also be very thorough, comprehensive, and innovative especially considering the necessary (and expected) time constraints.

Bibliography

Nealon, Cory. “Wearable Tech for the Battlefield and People at Risk for Heart Attacks,” University at Buffalo News Center, 2014. http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/11/019.html