Suchergebnisse

This report was translated by Dr. Grant Goodman, professor of history at the University of Kansas.

How does the U.S. constitutional system affect this country's ability to organize its armed forces? The primary impact of the system on the issues associated with organizing the armed services seems to be the inability of the United States to create a security apparatus with a truly national perspective. The result of this fragmented national security system has been an organizational and decision-making process that reflects the incomplete centralization of authority over the military. Incomplete centralization, in turn, allows the perspectives of the individual services to dominate the institutional environment and control-to a considerable degree-the functions and structure of the armed forces. More important, incomplete centralization and service dominance detract from the nation's ability to carry out the critical functions of strategic planning and advice, resource allocation, force structuring, and joint operations.

ABSTRACTOn November 8, 1978 several years of activity in the Congress and concern by the Department of Defense culminated in Public Law 95–610 when President Carter signed bill S.274. This law prohibits union organizations of the armed forces, membership in military labor organizations by members of the armed forces, and recognition of military labor organizations by the Government. Severe sanctions can be imposed for violations. Since representation is a broader concept than collective bargaining, P.L. 95–610, even should it survive possible court challenges to its constitutionality, does not settle the basic issues. These issues focus on (1) the changing demography and enlistment rules for the armed forces; (2) the response of the Department of Defense to these changes; and (3) the evolution of the various organizations of present and former military personnel into more union‐like activities. This paper addresses the policy implications of the foregoing three factors and suggests approaches compatible with both our military needs and our civilian traditions.

Since its introduction in 1977, the institutional/occupational (I/O) thesis has generated a growing body of international research. The basic proposition is that the military is moving from an institutional to an occupational format. The thesis is brought up to date by greater specification of I/O variables in military organization. Variables include legitimacy, role commitments, compensation systems, spouse, reference groups, legal system, and postservice status. The current formulation favors an approach that examines shifting constellations of I/O features within armed forces.

Although the basic responsibility for disaster relief lies with civil agencies, national, state, local, and private, the Armed Forces, because of their mobility and organization, are frequently utilized to lend urgently needed aid in emergency situations. National disaster relief, including military, is authorized by the Federal Disaster Act of 1950 and co-ordinated by the Federal Civil De fense Administration when the President declares a "major disaster." However, compelling humanitarian requirements inevitably put the military relief machin ery in action the moment disaster strikes. The magnitude of several recent dis asters has widened the scope of Department of Defense relief. Beyond the prompt emergency aid rendered, under the authority of the 1950 Disaster Act the Department has helped in postdisaster rehabilitation of public works and basic production facilities in disaster areas.—Ed.

The primary impact of the US constitutional system on the issues associated with organizing the armed services seems to be the inability of the US to create a security apparatus with a truly national perspective. The result of this fragmented national security system has been an organizational & decision-making process that reflects the incomplete centralization of authority over the military. Incomplete centralization, in turn, allows the perspectives of the individual services to dominate the institutional environment & to control -- to a considerable degree -- the functions & structure of the armed forces. Most important, incomplete centralization & service dominance detract from the nation's ability to carry out the critical functions of strategic planning & advice, resource allocation, force structuring, & joint operations. Modified HA

"January 2006." ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 46-48) ; Introduction: North American security and the Mexican military -- I. Historical context: the Mexican military under the "perfect dictatorship" -- II. Structure and organization of the Mexican armed forces -- III. Doctrine, missions, equipment, and professional development -- IV. Political change and the changing nature of the Mexican armed forces -- V. Toward closer cooperation between the Canadian and the Mexican armed forces. ; Mode of access: Internet.