1) The chapter 9, The Military Ascendancy, Mills discusses the increased presence of military personnel in high political positions. However, is this not what our country was founded on? Don’t we have a history of installing military personnel in almost all positions within our government? Only 12 of America’s 43 presidents have not served in the military, even congress has a larger percentage of veterans, compared to our population. Our history as a nation is built on military diplomacy, not professional diplomats. Have we not always used the “buddy-system” to leverage careers in politics? Why is this so surprising to Mills? 2) As described on pages 212 and 213, the budget for the military increased immensely after World War II, due to the
Introduction. Common Attributes of military leaders are just that, common. The accomplished Generals, Colonels and Majors that contributed to the most successful wars of our country have been molded a certain way. They are molded through vigorous training both in scholastic training and in the field along with rigorous mentorship. Colonel Lewis McBride was a rare exception to the rule. As a renowned Chemical museum curator so distinctively puts it, he was, without a doubt, one of the most interesting and industrious officers in the history of the US Army Chemical Corps.
Humes’ novel is about the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, dubbed the G.I. Bill of Rights, and contains stories of several men and women whose lives were changed because of this bill. Humes expresses how some individuals disliked the G.I. Bill, but not he. Throughout the novel, Humes expresses how the G.I. Bill was good for the country and presents those opposed in a negative light. For example, Humes writes,
The Union Army was able to match the intensity of the Confederacy, with the similar practice of dedication until death and patriotism, but for different reasons. The Union soldiers’s lifestyles and families did not surround the war to the extent of the Confederates; yet, their heritage and prosperity relied heavily on it. Union soldiers had to save what their ancestors fought for, democracy. “Our (Union soldiers) Fathers made this country, we, their children are to save it” (McPherson, 29). These soldiers understood that a depleted group of countries rather than one unified one could not flourish; “it is essential that but one Government shall exercise authority from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific” (Ledger, 1861).
10). Mills identified three major institutions in modern society. These dominating hierarchies consisted of military institutions, government institutions, and corporations. Mills discussed how the decision-making power of military, government, and corporate sectors has centralized, enlarged, and become incredibly powerful. Additionally, other sectors of society have become increasingly subjugated to the overarching power of these major social institutions, which has been achieved through the centralization and enlargement of military, government, and corporate institutions. Now, the leaders of these three major areas form a small, unified group that Mills referred to as the power elite. Interestingly enough, their source of elite power is not attributed to any individual factors, according to Mills. In contrast, he believed that their source of elite power stemmed from the high levels of legitimate authority that they, in fact, possessed. Therefore, their source of elite power was not attributed to individual factors such as charisma. Specifically, Mills believed that the power elite achieved an unparalleled degree of power and influence that was ascribed through the social organizations in which they occupied key leadership positions. Mills stressed that it was crucial to analyze the three major institutions of corporations, government, and military to understand how power, influence, and decision-making processes have narrowed, centralized, and enlarged. The three major institutions identified by Mills have provided the leaders of these institutions with a resource for power that Elwell (2006) described as being “never before equaled in human history” (p.
According to John Grenier, colonists used unlimited and employed irregular tactics, or The First Way of War, which Grenier describes as a small war tradition that nonprofessional soldiers to pursue unlimited objectives, using irregular means to obtain it. These tactics included ruthless warfare that included targeting elders, women and children, burning and raiding towns, destroying food sources and supply and assassinating enemy leaders. The arrival of colonists to America, did not introduce the concept of lethality in warfare; instead it introduced new technologies that changed the balance of offense and defense, making open battle more lethal and successful. The English’s mission was to exterminate the natives, in order to establish their
The United States Army, in its current state, is a profession of arms. In order to be considered a profession, the organization must have an ethical code rooted in values, strong trust with its clients, and be comprised of experts within the trade. These experts are constantly developing the trade for the present and the future and hold the same shared view of their trade culture.
One thing that stands out is the author’s approach to the betterment of the community. Aside from trying to recruit individuals into the service, I believe he might also acknowledge Grossman for what he’s doing to the homeless citizens of Los Angeles. We can assume the author appreciates creating a better and easier life for people. Most importantly, however, it is agreeable to say that the article implies that the military is what the author remarkably values. I feel this way because in all corners of the article, it is touched upon. For example, the author prints, “The qualities you acquire while in the military are qualities that stay with you forever,” and “Today’s Military: See it for what it really is.” Additionally, he informs us that Grossman has been featured in magazines highlighting those who have served in the U.S. Military. He’s complimented the military multiple times in his work. I believe he also wishes to expose some admirable things about the military and shine light to it, in hopes of gaining followers and supporters for the
o Isserman, Maurice. America at War World War II. New York: Facts on File Inc, 1991.
Wright-Mills, C. (1956) Power, Politics and People: Selected essays of C Wright Mills. P 174. Oxford University Press: New York
In a recent verbal bout with my History of the Military Art professor, I contended that the true might of a nation may be inversely proportional to the size of its military during peacetime. My thinking, though perhaps idealistic, was that the maintenance of a large military during relative international tranquility is an overt admission of weakness and increases the likelihood of unnecessarily employing that force—it is contextually irrelevant. Instead, I proposed that a strong and stable economy is the best metric of national prowess, for such an economy can resource many opportunities as they arise. On the contrary, a robust standing military has a much narrower utility. To be sure, this author is not one that intentionally seeks to take an interdisciplinary approach to academia, but the connection seems relevant given the nature of this assignment. Whereas a nation may accomplish a strategic goal through military force, a leader may accomplish a task relying upon coercive power; whereas a nation may transform and develop the world through its economic strength and versatility, a versatile leader may transform others through the employment of one or many leader development principles—both theoretically based and experientially acquired. This piece serves to describe acquired PL499 course concepts and their relevance to my project team and the West Point Leader Development System (WPLDS). Only through a...
There is an every growing need for college graduates that need government benefits. There are a surplus of able body men and woman looking for a career or a chance to better their life’s using the benefits provide by the Mandatory Military Services Act as a catalyst to improve the standard of living for each citizen. By having experience that will transience to the job market, with the job market being flooded with highly train workers with military background the overall productivity will greatly improve. (Ruschmann
The military since the Colonial Era has been an impetus for social reform in the United States. The Revolutionary War afforded Black Americans an opportunity to escape from the toils of slavery and fight for freedom. Some Black Americans even earned their freedom by fighting for the Colonists, but still the freedom they fought for wasn’t their own. However, the military was responsible for the freedom of many slaves and some of these freed slaves became legendary soldiers like Salem Poor. His performance in battle gave credibility for future arguments about blacks being allowed to serve.
Finer, Samuel E, and Jay, Stanley. 2004. The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics. NewBrunswick: Transaction Pub.
Snider, D. M. (2008). Dissent and strategic leadership of the military professions. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.
The premise of Mills’ theory revolves around a group at the top of the hierarchy called the power elite. This is a group that consists of military officials, top government representatives, and the top corporate executives. Underneath this authoritative group is a middle class, or a middle level of power. These are the people that work in Congress and other middle level interest groups. Below them are the masses, a group that possesses little to no power in society and are essentially manipulated by those above them. The power elite makes all of the important public decisions, especially those dealing with foreign policies. The power elite is united not only because of their communal desire for wealth and dominance, but also their mutual religious beliefs, education, and other social interests amongst their institutions. If we accept this theory of a small, all-powerful force of government, than democracy in society would either be very weak or nonexistent.