Question One

Question One

According to Builder’s assessment of the US military services, the aspects of strategic thinking in the 70’s and 80’s had diminished significantly. These had been neglected completely, unlike tactical and operational aspects of planning which were kept up to date and in line with current forms of conflict. Strategic theorizing in military debates had reduced to the point that the military did not consider this to be pertinent in the culture of warfare at the time. The Navy’s objectives and mission can be considered to be in line with portions of this assessment mainly since they focus on the tactical aspects of warfare as opposed to the strategic facets of military planning[1].

The Navy’s approach, much like that of other military services, has other positive aspects that Builder recommended towards improving the strategic culture. These include dealing with asymmetrical conflicts such as the war of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by using joint international forces with the intention of winning such conflicts[2]. This also involves the Navy’s goals of transforming, modernizing and recapitalizing its efforts to meet new challenges according to current international interests.

Question Two

The article makes a correct assessment of the need to improve the procedures of analyzing information and integrating it into military useful intelligence. With an increase in collection platforms being recorded daily, an effective fusion of information from various sources aids in avoiding ambiguity as well as improving the success of dependent military efforts.

 

Question Three

The article represents a positive aspect of the Afghanistan war in the Dutch-controlled Uruzgan province despite the criticism on these forces being reluctant at engaging in direct conflict. This “ink-spot” approach applied in this context can be construed as being a more efficient way of ensuring the success of efforts in the region, defined mainly by the establishment of a peaceful and stable state, that is achieved sooner and with less civilian and military casualties on both sides.

Question Four

A precise observation is made on the current military strategy that involves the modern acquisition of technology over the use of more traditional art-like form of dealing with conflict. A fusion of the two aspects is proposed in a bid to improve the flexibility and efficiency of the military, effectively rendering Builder’s five faces ineffective in dealing with the present culture.

Question Five

The article can be criticized for citing Builder’s five faces as differences that are noted in the aspects of the military, and especially the US Army which is presented as just providing logistical support for the rest of the elements. As a result, the Army can be construed as being lacking in its efforts of ensuring the security and safety of the country.

 

Bibliography

Builder, Carl H. The Masks of War. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989

Mullen, M. G. Meeting the Challenge of a New Era. CNO Guidance for 2006. http://www.navy.mil/features/2006CNOG.pdf (Accessed March 31, 2009)