Joint Force Globalization Trends Analysis

The defense, security, and safety American citizens enjoy each and every day is a result of dedicated professionals committed to Homeland Security and Homeland Defense. These broad initiatives require well-defined missions, organized and focused tasking, and finally, clearly understood duties, responsibilities, and operations. Organizations charged with these responsibilities must be better resourced than those of the enemy. Success in each of these objectives requires a well-organized infrastructure with clear mission sets. The afore mentioned areas of responsibility, related planning, and resource/personnel management are fluid (rightfully so) and are constantly reevaluated, restructured, and/or reinforced to best counterattack our Nation’s vulnerabilities before they become casualties.

The Secretary of Defense outlined three strategic pillars in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR): defending the homeland; building security globally by projecting U.S. influence and deterring aggression; and remaining prepared to win decisively against any adversary should deterrence fail. All three pillars are nested within the objectives of the NSS and arguably, the second pillar establishes a strategic to operational bridge through security cooperation operations (SCO). The assessment of SCO as a bridge between strategic guidance and operational objectives is supported by Joint Publication 3-0 which states that Military Engagement, Security Cooperation, and Deterrence are “ongoing activities (that) establish, shape, maintain, and refine relations with other nations and domestic civil authorities (e.g., state governors or local law enforcement). The general strategic and operational objective is to protect US interests at home and abroad.”

Bellavita Christopher is the Director of Programs for the Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Homeland Defense and Security. Also, from 1998 to 2002, he was the planning coordinator for the Utah Olympic Public Safety Command. The author focuses on the fact that homeland security faces a variety of threats. Many factors such as the economy, weapons of mass destruction and a lack of moral compass pose potential challenges to homeland security (Bellavita, 2009). The terrorist attacks such as the one in Mumbai, the economic meltdown, the disaster on the borders remain potential malefactors to the U. S. homeland. And to no surprise, the threats are gradually transforming into a more complex tactics. Bellavita takes aim towards a realistic assessment

P.W. Singer and August Cole’s 2015 novel, Ghost Fleet, demonstrates how the American military’s trending dependence on high-tech, networked warfighting may be vulnerable to foreign near-peer and hybrid threats. Merging expertise from Washington-based foreign policy think tanks and defense technology sectors, the authors weave a fictional, yet plausible depiction of a near-future war featuring the United States, China, and Russia.

Despite the complexity of this environment and fiscal austerity, the JF25 must “protect our Nation and win our wars.” It must deter and defeat state adversaries, disrupt and defeat terrorist organizations, and strengthen the global network of allies and partners.” The prioritized capabilities required for Joint Force 2025 are linked to the imperatives of securing the homeland and maintaining strategic agility. This essay discusses general attributes of the JF, specific capability requirements by service, and the risk associated with focusing the rebalance on these two imperatives.

The threat environment has expanded from a strategic, nuclear, symmetrical threat from bombers, ICBMs, and air-or-sea-launched cruise missiles, to a continuing symmetrical threat in addition to an emergent asymmetric threat, focused across all domains, borders and agencies. Accordingly, our political leaders recognized a need to transform the military for a new ‘home game’. United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) was established to assume responsibility for the defence of the US homeland, and this new Command was tasked to provide military assistance to civil authorities (MACA).

With Trump’s election this year, his rhetoric of “Making America Great Again” and therefore revitalizing our military will soon become a reality. Trump has formally requested a reappropriation of funds; around $54 Billion, towards the US military. Part of Trump’s campaign promises had to do with making the military more robust; ensuring America’s title of militarily strongest in the world. In order to achieve this goal. Trump’s federal government has the option of many different aspects of the military to focus on. Of these, funding weapons of mass destruction, cyber security, and further military research and development prove themselves as most relevant in the contemporary military.

With the emergence of the 21st century the necessity for a broader understanding of security have said present. The world has experienced a variety of new security challenges that have put at stake human safety and have made policymakers all around the world rethink their approach and strategies when it comes to the decision making process. The rise of terrorist organizations in the international arena as well as the development of extremist groups has offered extreme significance to the quest for power and the search for peace, while requiring us to look back and examine our achievements and failures in the analysis of terrorism, extremist groups and our counterterrorism efforts since 9/11. It is essential for all Americans to understand

While a commander’s staff conducts planning at any level, whether it is strategic, operational, or tactical, the importance of identifying both theirs and the adversary’s center of gravity (COG) is a critical part of the planning process. Three factors should be carefully analyzed in order to gain a full understanding of the COG; they are critical capabilities, critical requirements and critical vulnerabilities (U.S. Office of the CJCS 11 August 2011, III-24). Although a COG can be attacked directly, the indirect approach which seeks to destroy or neutralize the COG by attacking an adversary’s critical vulnerabilities can be a more efficient use of available resources. The United States Marine Corps’ Warfighting publication MCDP 1 draws a direct correlation between a COG and its critical vulnerability by stating, “we should focus our efforts against a critical vulnerability, a vulnerability that, if exploited, will do the most significant damage to the enemy 's ability to resist us” (United States Marine Corps 1997, 47). The Marine Corps favors the indirect approach to defeating an adversary’s COG because the functions assigned to them by the Department of Defense (DoD) require expeditionary operations and expeditionary forces typically are limited in size, assets, and resources driving them to target an adversary’s critical vulnerabilities.

values, building security partnerships, and building a culture of resilience (President 2011, 4). The DHS has shown progress in building security partners through the department’s efforts in information sharing efficiency as demonstrated in fusion centers. Building a culture of resilience entails the DHS mission of understanding and reducing the vulnerability of the nation, and mitigating the damage from an attack. Evaluating the DHS’s progress in this task is difficult, because it is uncertain how much of the nation’s resilience is inherent, and how much is a product of the DHS’s actions. Future terrorism projections state that weapons of mass destruction and explosive devices will be more accessible to terrorists and organizations (West 2012, 4). A suggested strategy to combat this forecasted threat is to develop stronger relationships with foreign governments and other stakeholders. The DHS will need to build a stronger relationship with other government departments in order to access the resources and intelligence to build the suggested relationship with foreign governments and stakeholders to meet this future threat.

The 'Joint and Coalition Operational Analysis (JCOA) case study is regarding the U.S-Philippines partnership in counter-terrorism (CT) operations that took place from 2002-2011. The CT operation was titled as 'Operation ENDURING FREEDOM-PHILIPPINES (OEF-P) and was conducted by the partnership of Philippine security forces and US Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (JSOTF-P). The CT cooperation took place at three levels, tactical, operational, and strategic. The role of JSOTF was that of 'advise and assist' whereby ground operations were conducted by the Philippine forces. The US cooperation for CT in Philippines was guided by the Joint Publication (JP) 5-0, Joint Operation Planning, and a policy and action framework to act as a binding framework for conducting joint, interagency, and multinational CT operations using full range of military operational capacity. The OEF-P was also conducted by incorporating JP 5-0 principles and guidelines of engagement. The OEF-P took place in Southern Philippines. Following is an assessment how the US forces used termination, military end state, and objectives of operational design (Joint Pub 5-0, page III-18) to develop and refine their operational approach.

With the events that happened on September 11, 2001, the American people and all government leadership realized that the U.S. was fight a whole new other type of war. The U.S. has dealt with foreign terrorist networks abroad and the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. With the tragic event of 9/11, it became something of a nightmare because no American in history had the knowledge to deal with this kind of attack. Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) wants nothing more than to destroy America and the threat of another attack is imminent but, when? Every year these FTO’s will evolve and want to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

Up to now the literature review has given an insight into the concept of globalization, and the understanding of several academics in the light of how this phenomenon developed over the years. It is then essential to cover what the economic benefits of globalization are, and how these may impact a sector or company. Most of the literature study’s that have been written on the economic benefits of globalization have been after 2006. The reason is because the studies used the globalization index which was created by Dreher (2006) then further developed by Dreher (2008) again. Many of the empirical studies used this index as indicator as a base to form their findings.

For better or worse, the United States, its allies, and the world are in this conflict together. On an overwhelming scale, wars are fought for the protection of a nation’s sovereignty. The ability to self-govern is dependent on a nation’s ability to protect itself from foreign aggressors. Chertoff points out that by the inauguration of President Barak Obama, in 2009, Al Qaeda went from a national-level terrorist organization, to an insurgency with no state sponsor (Chertoff 2009). This, suggests that there has been an increase in America’s ability to protect its borders from the very threat it is at conflict with. The engagement in conflict, however, benefits more than just the nation which initiates the war. During war, new alliances are formed, and old ones are reinforced. The United States is very effective at ensuring the success of our allies, to guarantee future support. The creation of the Civil Affairs branch, of the United States Army, sought to increase international relations by better preparing other countries to support America’s causes, as well as their own. “When our allies acquire U.S. government equipment, it increasingly enhances our interoperability.” (Helfer, Jones, 2011). One area that seems impaired by the GWOT is international security. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, there have been nearly 100 attempted or

The establishment of the European Union (EU) solidified a united political, economic, and defensive front creating a Supranational Organization (Lucas, 1999, no page). With the assistance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States, the EU has developed a comprehensive security strategy responsible for leading the coalition’s objectives for mutual solidarity, global stabilization, and defense. To address security threats both regionally and globally set forth by the European Security Strategy (ESS), considerations were developed which encompass both cultural domains of geography and development.