Globalization is not a new event. At the same time, it is not easily definable in terms that are appropriate for strategic and force planning. The fact is that various major trends are restructuring much of universal society. These patterns comprise a far more incorporated configuration of commerce and outlay, the expansion of multinational companies, the combination of telecommunications and information systems, as well as the improved use of computer systems and automation. In the military, globalization can have a very different importance. The world today may not experience an increased sense of peace than the world before us. With each progress arises conflict and the need for conflict resolution.
Globalization can influence the creation of new exposures and tensions and alleviate or change old ones. At the same time, trends that seem peaceful could result in violence with slight or no premeditated warning (Bertho et al., 2008). As such, globalization comes with problems for the military force planners. Military planners have no need to prepare for a future with economic development ending a leading source of apprehension between nations. They do not to plan for a world with global information systems creating a level of shared perceptive that settle various historical reasons for discrepancies, or for a globe that comes together around social equality and common values because this would mean that the military slowly goes out of business. For this reason, military planners need to plan for further worldwide tendencies with a higher likelihood of threatening and at least similarly liable to shape the first phase of the Twenty-first Century (Cordesman, 2000). Considering the similarities between the early post-Cold War period and the next half of this century, the US could not face similar peer threats or ideological foes as was the case in the past Century. However, it expects to see the materialization of influential regional powers and alliances that could at times show hostility towards the strategic interests of the United States (Daalder and Lindsay, 2003). Some of these global trends could demonstrate equally significant, thereby, forcing the US to prepare for new risks and new types of warfare. They include: 1) a world that is recognized for its violent nature, 2) the complexity of a world that is experiencing too much change whereby overall financial growth so far covers up a rising gap between the rich and the poor both in nations as well as between them, 3) a globe with unbalanced regional supremacy alliances that are mixed with a broad variety of religious, ethnic and racial pressure, 4) a future that could see a challenge to the status of the United States as the sole superpower through decreased spending and excess commitment as well as the incapacity to entrust resources matching the roles of the US forces being called upon to perform, 5) a future whereby these demands could compel the US to assume new categories of league warfare, 6) a world whereby technology transfer and reallocations in the rates and accessibility of main technologies fail to meet the sort of developments sought by the US in the ‘uprising in military affairs,’ 7) a future that could lead to an asymmetric warfare caused by the merging of nations that cannot challenge the United States and the Western piloting in conventional battle capacities and technology, 8) a world in which asymmetric warfare dominates with proliferation becoming the custom, 9) new susceptibility patterns in the world developing from a change in the global financial system that match developing worldwide economic interdependence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Global violence and conflict
The military plans for worldwide violence and conflict. However, the military cannot base its planning on this element since though they are likely, they are often remotely possible. At the same time, military planners cannot anticipate for any constant or clear standards for them to determine the sorts of crisis that engage military action. This is because, at present, the United States has handled crisis on a case by case basis. The Vietnam War was an event that led to the US conclusion on such matters (Cordesman, 2000). However, the following years have indicated that the United States approach documents and planning regulation created any plain policy or criteria for employing military force. After the war in Kosovo, the US has made an effort to classify a Clinton Doctrine for handling the obligation of military forces. However, this doctrine only contains little ethic statements about stopping ethnic cleansing in the case that the world society can put such a war to an end. Besides this, there have been other similar attempts. However, the US just cannot wait to establish if a problem or crisis contains or does not involve a vital strategic interest, as well as an awkward effect of being a universal superpower, is that any place in the world entails at least a questionable attachment to some strategic interest (Daalder and Lindsay, 2003). Though some wars did not involve any direct danger to significant American strategic interests, most of them have.
The emergence of regionalized war requires the US military to prepare for chief regional conflict. These disparities could involve nuclear power and budding peer. Some immediate danger conflict zones include the Korea and the Gulf, as well as the long-lasting menace imposed by Russia and China. Others include major regional wars against Iraq and North Korea among others. After the WWII, 80 percent of the world’s nations emerged, and the world now consists of approximately 200 countries. Around half of these emerging nations experience harsh religious and ethnic divisions, instability and disputed border concerns. One could simply label some of these states as abortive or rascal nations. There is also the element of extremism which could emerge in many regions of the world (Bertho et al., 2008). Ongoing civil wars are also not expected to die out. Besides, there is also the abiding threat of major regional conflicts that are not directly connected to the US interests but could need the intervention of the United States either on a military level or a humanitarian level. An example of such situations is the nuclear artillery competition between Pakistan and India that could be a bleak case. The situation here is blurry regarding how the conflicts will interrelate with the surfacing of regional blocs. However, what is clear is that the US military planning will be obligated for power projection in a broad range of zones with extremely dissimilar power necessities and impending settings for pact warfare (Publications, 2007). The military must also consider the probability of the emergence of the subsequent additional regional power unions even though it will not be sure if and when these blocs will partner, split, or become opponents.
The fact is that the world is not a safe and certain place and for this reason, the US has no option but to react. With the many emerging wars around the world, there is the need for increased military planning for major regional wars or global engagement at some time in this century (Cordesman, 2000). The US will also need to protect its strategic interests. On the other hand, there is need to understand the severity that lies in the risk of underrating the true nature of the intricacy of the tendencies that shape the present world. Conflicts and crises have been inevitable through history, even in situations where the US military has used force to thwart conflict. At the same time, inane overviews of treating the world, as a probity play are not doctrine or policy. It is naïve to, therefore, commit the US forces to unforeseen events that entail vital strategic interests. The US will not be able to pass the time waiting to establish the nature of a crisis to determine its national interests.
Living as the sole superpower in the world has only made the situation more complex (Daalder and Lindsay, 2003). The US has been subjected to global responsibilities that have put severe strain on its forces. This strain makes it potentially susceptible to reallocations in regional military proliferation and asymmetric warfare (Bertho et al., 2008). The country also faces a big problem which is dealing with the global demands from the trends of the changing world and this means more spending for the country and increased military intervention expectations. These problems will not reduce in the future since globalization will only make the situation worse. As such, the US will have to reconsider the way it uses is military force.
References
Bertho, M., Crawford, B. & Fogarty, E. (2008). The impact of globalization on the United States . Westport, Conn: Praeger.
Cordesman, A. (March 2000). Globalization and US Military Planning. Center for Strategic and International Studies . Pp. 1-33. Retrieved from https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/000301globalization.pdf
Daalder, I., and Lindsay, J. (1 January, 2003). The Globalization of Politics: American Foreign Policy for a New Century. Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-globalization-of-politics-american-foreign-policy-for-a-new-century/
Publications, U. (2007). Us military intelligence handbook . Place of publication not identified: Intl Business Pubns Usa.
<citations>
Author, A. A. (Publication Date). Title of work: Capitalize all APA titles like a sentence . Location: Publisher.
Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Publication Date). Title of article. Title of Periodical, volume# (issue#), pages. http://dx.doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyyy
Author, A. A., & Author, B. B. (Publication Date). Title of article. Title of Online Periodical, volume# (issue#). Retrieved from http://www.insertthelink.here
