Search results

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.

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

The authors examine the challenges of the 21st century international security environment to which future strategic leaders and policy practitioners will need to respond. More specifically, they offer the reader insights into security studies and leadership development at their respective levels (military undergraduate, civilian undergraduate, traditional and nontraditional graduate, and senior military officer) and institutions (including research centers and professional outreach programs). The goal is to inform a broader audience about what is currently being done in the way of educating strategic practitioners at these various institutions, and what might need to be done differently or better. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1835/thumbnail.jpg

Sisk, T. D.: Power sharing in multiethnic societies. - S.34-67. Shaimiev, M.: Conflict prevention and management: the significance of Tartastan's experience. - S.68-77. Drobizheva, L.: Power sharing in the Russian Federation: the view from the Center and from the Republics. - S.80-96. Lysenko, V. N.: Distribution of power: the experience of the Russian Federation. - S.97-115. Gorbachev, M.: The settlement on interethnic conflicts and the experience of Russia. - S.116-122. Kaufman, D. J.: The role of the military in preventing deadly conflict. - S.124-160. Gareev, M.: The role of military factors in preventing and resolving armed conflicts. - S.161-174. Kokoshin, A.: The role of the military in post-Cold War Russia. - S.175-178. Kortunov, A.: International peacemaking on the territory of the former USSR. - S.180-196. Lapidus, G. W.: Lessons from the Russian experience. - S.198-203