Brief Explanation of the Organization
The US Army organization is one of the three military departments: Air Force, Navy, and Army. All the military departments report to the Department of Defense. The Army has two components, which include the active and reserve. The reserve department has two sections, which are the United States Army Reserve and Army National Guard. The Army is made up of corps, armies, brigades, divisions, and battalions that engage in different operations around the globe. The Army, as an institution, supports different operations such as training, equipping, deploying, and preparing soldiers for war (The US Army Command Structure, n.d.). At the top of the Army’s structure is the Department of the Army, followed by commands, service command, and reporting units. The US has more than one million active and reserve units. The overall budget of the military defense is more than $700 billion.
Political Activities
Networking and Coalitions
Networking and the formation of coalitions are central to the US army. The formation of coalitions is part of winning wars in the modern world. As the US army modernizes its arsenal, it has to network with allies to ensure systems are working well. In future wars, the US must join coalitions with strategic partners. The Army, for instance, must form new tactical networks and ensure that its network tools can work in a coalition with partners (Walker, 2019). The US army networks with allies and potential adversaries to stay ahead of the arms race. The Army can use the classified and uncoded network enclaves to improve its readiness for war. Tactical networking and coalitions are vital in winning wars.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Bargaining and Negotiation
Bargaining and negotiations are part of the military. The US army in hot spots like Iraq, Mali, and Afghanistan must persuade local leaders to share vital information. In the process of bargaining and negotiation, the Army must distinguish a foe from a friend (Hogan, n.d). Negotiations in the Army can be challenging when the army and local officials have a position and an interest. A position is the Army, or local officials want. Interests influence certain positions. The Army can examine and re-examine its position in order to reach an agreement (Weiss et al., 2010). Moreover, the Army can have procedural interests, which tend to stress the importance of processes used to reach a certain outcome. Like politics, the Army can collaborate and even build trust with adversaries.
Enduring Differences
Like any other organization, the US army also experiences enduring differences. As noted above, the Army has interests and positions on the battlefield. Commanders have differing values and beliefs, resulting in enduring differences. As noted above, the US army has to negotiate with different local leaders with different interests and positions. This means that an adversary and the US army would have enduring differences due to tactical reasons (Walker, 2019). The scarcity of resources can also result in differences. Army generals have to make difficult decisions when it comes to resource allocation in hot spots. However, generals can negotiate differences and come up with reasonable compromises.
Bolman and Deal’s Political Frame
Bolman and Deal outlined four frames, which include political, structural, symbolic, and human resources. The political frame examines the issues of individuals and interest groups at the organizational level. For instance, in the US army, some general can have a hidden interest when it comes to the sharing of resources to the conflict zones and bargaining with allies. Hidden interests can result in the Army, making difficult decisions. The political frame is largely associated with bargaining, building coalitions, resolving conflicts, and power sharing.
The three political events identified above a considerable impact on the activities and the success of the US army (Bolman & Deal, 1991). Networking and coalitions is purely a political agenda. For instance, foreign policies influence how the US army networks and forms coalitions with allies and adversaries. For instance, NATO has been a close ally of the US. The US has been funding considerable resources to ensure the NATO alliance can face the adversaries (Benitez, 2019). However, a change in foreign policy can have a considerable impact on how the NATO alliance works. Budget cuts also jeopardize the formation of coalitions. Largely, the formation of coalitions depends on foreign relations, which has a connection with politics.
The Army also plays politics when it bargains and negotiates with local leaders in active military zones. In the Middle East, for instance, the US army forms strategic coalitions during negations (Benitez, 2019). Although the Army may not influence domestic politics, it has a hand in policymaking when it goes to war. For example, when the US army invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, it had to engage in negations to have access to vital information. Politics play a considerable role during the bargaining process. For instance, local leaders can agree with the Army to form a coalition that will eventually support the building of a new government.
Like in any other organization, enduring differences form the face of the Army. Differences may result from internal and external conflicts in an organization. In essence, even the generals in the US army disagree on the attack and defense strategies to use. However, it is important to note that the political frame emphasizes the importance of tactics and strategy (Bolman & Deal, 1991). Enduring differences have benefits as well as costs. For instance, poor management of differences can result in infighting and destructive power struggles. However, when handled properly, the differences can stimulate innovation and creativity, making the Army to deliver. Moreover, external differences prepare the Army well, particularly in the formation of strategic alliances and coalitions. Largely, the US army experiences internal and external differences that might result in destructive conflicts or innovation and creativity.
Consequences and Outcomes
The three political behaviors identified above can lead to negative or positive in the immediate and long-term. In the short-term, for instance, the US army can lose or gain a strategic position due to coalition and barraging power. The Army engages in short-term and long-term conflicts. However, the Army tends to focus on long-term strategy. As noted earlier, the future winning future would greatly depend on coalitions, alliances, and enduring differences (Jacobs, n.d.).
In terms of coalitions, the US army needs to enter into alliances that will strengthen its capabilities. Withdrawing from strategic collations such as NATO can save considerable military resources (Benitez, 2019). However, in the long-term, the US army can lose its strategic position if it does form coalitions with allies. Moreover, negations are vital for the Army short-term and long-term strategic positions such as the Middle East and Asia. In the short-term, negations are crucial in accessing vital information. In the long-term, negations will help the Army win future wars. Differences can result in negative short-term and long-term consequences and outcomes if not handled well. In the short-term, for instance, the US army can lose major strategic allies if it withdraws from coalitions due to differences. In the long-term, the Army will lose its cutting edge in winning future wars.
Overall, political behaviors can result in negative and positive consequences and outcomes. Foreign policies have a considerable impact on the US army plays its politics. Favorable policies allow the Army to have the upper hand in negations and the formation of coalitions. The Army needs to consider both the negative and positive outcomes before forming alliances or withdrawing from one.
References
Benitez, J. (2019). US NATO Policy in the Age of Trump: Controversy and Consistency. Fletcher F. World Aff. , 43 , 179.
Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: artistry, choice, and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco: John Wiley.
Hogan, R.L. (n.d). Chapter 9: Power, conflict, and coalitions . Eastern Illinois University. Retrieved on May 12, 2014 from http://www.eiu.edu/~lhogan/Bolman%20&%20Deal%20ch09.ppt
Jacobs, R.M. (n.d.). Theories of practice: The political frame. Villanova University. Retrieved on May 1, 2014 from http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208002/Powerpoint/8002%20MPA/political.ppt
The US Army Command Structure . (n.d.). Organization | The United States Army. https://www.army.mil/organization/
Walker, A. (2019, March 6). Army uses rapid acquisition to deliver coalition network enclaves . www.army.mil. https://www.army.mil/article/218179/army_uses_rapid_acquisition_to_deliver_coalition_network_enclaves
Weiss, J., Donigian, A., & Hughes, J. (2010). Extreme negotiations. Harvard Business Review , 88 (11), 66-75.
