An Analysis of the US Army in Strategic Management - Essay Example

Topic: An analysis of the US Army in Strategic Management The US army, one of the three military departments, is answerable to Department of Defense. It comprises of two different and equally significant sections: the active component and the reserve components. The US army reserve components are the United States Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. The organization structure is based on its operational and institutional missions, which are carried out by the operational unit with support from institutional army. It provides the essential infrastructure from training to positioning of the army. The industrial base provides equipment and logistic services – putting up power-projected platforms for positioning land forces rapidly to help soldiers. After positioning of forces, institutional army provides logistic support. The US army also boasts of Army Material Command (AMC). It is army’s main supplier of ready material – technology, getting support, material development, logistics power providing to the whole force on a scenario like joint military operations. Strategy management of US army (Bartholomees, 2006) is not based on any formula but set principles and creative processes. Formation of strategy is planned in accordance with time, place and dignitaries involved. Defense strategy planners target to attain a logical, continuing accord by formulating national security and military strategies. 1* 1. J. Boone Bartholomees is Professor of Military History in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the U.S. Army War College. Strategy management of any organization can be analyzed with the framework of External Factor Evaluation Matrix (EFE). Some of the important external factors of strategy formation are: Economy, Political/Legal/Governmental, Social/Demographic/Environmental, Technological, and Competitive factors. Economic factor-- Economic condition plays a very important part in strategy formulation. American economy (Chun, 2006) has been an element of power. National leadership finds it more conducive to use economic power rather than military power to resolve strategically important issues. Market competitive forces have a free hand in cutting costs and availability of goods and services in an interdependent economy. Free trade in tariff free markets has strengthened the mutual relations with other countries. On the wrong side, there has been fear of loosing important industries on the pretext of reducing cost of production, and taking the risk of endangering national security. Political, legal and government factors—McShane (2006) has written a chapter on ‘International law and the new world order: Redefining Sovereignty.’ The path ahead is one of cooperation among different government leaders. 2. Clayton K. S. Chun is chairman of the Department of Distance Education at the U.S. Army War College. 3. Thomas W. McShane was Director, National Security Legal Studies in the Department of National Security and Strategy at the Army War College. American policy has been to take multilateral action, as it is not possible for the political leadership to attack alone; coalitions offer not only additional resources but also political backing and legal justification for such joint military operations, as has happened in the case of Iraq war, where US army had active support of the UK military forces. Sometimes, diplomatic strategy works better to settle disputes than military action. Army action should be the last resort to create goodwill among world governments by conducting peace negotiations. Collapse of the Soviet Union was not expected and the cold war has not ended the way, it was assumed. The new world-order is taking its course without any intervention. So, diplomatic tool is very important resource. Further, it is satisfactory that international system is not contrary to American values and heritage. Democracy thrives on difference of opinions. Also, it is the core of constitutional system to behave responsibly. If America wants to lead the international community, it has to guarantee that the system works. Environmental and demographic factors—America’s grand strategic vision had been one of isolation to global engagement, limiting the expansion of communism and maintaining its supremacy. That vision has become irrelevant due to changing world happenings like the break-up of Soviet Union and end of cold-war. The given international and domestic environment has compelled the strategists to analyze the priorities once again. According to Meinhart (2006), the status of national military strategy of 2005 has not been officially changed by General Myers but new products have been added. 4* 4. Richard M. Meinhart is currently serving as a Professor of Defense and Joint Processes at the Army War College in the Department of Command, Leadership and Management. One was new classified 2002 policy, 2005 National Military Strategic Plan to provide guidance on war on terrorism and risk assessment of following national military strategy. The strategic planning system has evolved from cold war rigidity to flexibility in vision and focused on resources of waging war on terrorism and identifying joint force capabilities. The strategic environment before the 2004 National Military Strategy was marked by terrorist attack of 9/11, followed by Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (Afghanistan) October 2001, and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (Iraq) March 2003. The three environmental aspects of the military strategy of 2004 were: varied range of enemies, complex battle space – physical, cyber space, foreign state and homeland, and the problem of technology diffusion and access. The civilian dual-use technologies were available at global level and could be used by enemies for military ends. Earlier defense strategies didn’t pay attention to the problem of technology diffusion. Technological factors have affected the strategic possibilities of the US army, as warfare has become network-centric. Experts’ opinions are divided on the issue of taking networking as a rising theory of war or it is just technology. According to Groh (2006), information technology and enterprise networking have become tools to be competitively ahead of other players in the market. These tools provide competitive edge over present and future enemies. 5* 5. Jeffrey L. Groh is the Professor of Information and Technology in Warfare in the Department of Distance Education at the U.S. Army War College. The Department of Defense (DoD) has been following on a policy of actively developing network-centric warfare capabilities as a means of getting advantage over enemies. Porter’s five forces model and the US army—The US army will be facing competition not only from its allies and anti-forces but other than that ever-growing extremism against its values, reacting in tragedies the like of 9/11. Presently it is undergoing total overhauling in the face of advanced technological know-how, which is changing the very face of war through networking-centric warfare. The very structure of the US army is based on Michael Porter’s two level generic taxonomy of value chain activity. It is comprised of two sections – active component and reserve component. Its operational unit gets support from institutional army, performing the role of support activities. Logistics services are provided by the industrial base. Overall cost leadership is reduction in cost by installing efficient-scale facilities, cost reduction in R&D and other activities. Productivity Enhancement Program (PEP) is one such move to reduce cost, meant to manage processes in new research in savings. Lean Six Sigma is yet another approach to eliminating waste and creating value. Differentiation strategy requires creating unique products, which the US army is doing in its own way through its Army Material Command by developing sophisticated weapon systems, research on maintaining and distributing the spare parts. The army’s Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC) Rock Island Arsenal is the first engineering concern to possess ISO 9001:2000 certification – bringing differentiation in its products. Focus is yet another strategic force, which is applied to serve a target very well. The US army is focusing on selected external factors to be competitively ahead in the field of technology, innovation through the tools of information technology and network-centric warfare. According to Kulzick (2002), in a competitive profile matrix, competitive factors, weighs and ratings are normally decided by market research. American economy has been a competitive element of power balance. When assimilated with political and military power, the triangle overshadows other players, and ranks the US army above others. In future global environment, economics can be meaningfully employed as a tool, besides political, military, and informational power, to bring positive change in the attitude of other nations and increasing US influence. At political and government level, the joint ventures in Europe and Asia are competitively better alternatives instead of going all alone in military pursuits. Taking active UK support in Iraq war is the best example of joint military action. Technology is a major competitive factor in keeping the American army ahead of its competitors. Informational technology added to networking-centric warfare is the future platform of waging successful wars, in which the country’s forces are aggressively ahead of its competitors. Applying soft option of diplomatic approach to negotiate on issues of differences has been the right approach pursued by the government. Innovation in creating new products like the Future Force Warrior System – a comprehensive “system of systems” – a segment of Army transformation, focusing on soldier force, adding value to future combat systems, is competitive product, bringing the US army ahead of its competitors. Reference: Final Edition SMIB Organizational and Personnel Changes, http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:jSksMWMoWssJ:www.hqda.army.mi l/leadingchange/SMID%2520Newsletter/FINAL%2520EDITION%2520J UNE%25202006.pdf+strategic+management+us+army&hl=en&ct=clnk& cd=3&gl=in. Accessed 15 March 2007. HQDA, www.hqda.army.mil/leadingchange/. Accessed 15 March 2007. Kulzick, Porter, Michael E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press. Available from http://www.kulzick.com/stu/casether.htm. Accessed 15 March 2007. Strategy Formulation Analytical Framework, Available from http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:X3aPLtrEhUIJ:mktgandmgmt.utep.edu/smanagement/chap06.ppt+external+factors+strategic+management&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=in. Accessed 15 March 2007. The U.S. Army: Organization, Available from http://www.army.mil/institution/organization/. Accessed 15 March 2007. U.S. Army War College, Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy, 2nd Edition, 2006, Available from http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB708.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2007. Read More