Order Now

Compare and Contrast Two Efforts by the U.S. Military to Transform

Thesis: In this essay I would like to compare and contrast two efforts made by the U.S. military in order to transform. The first effort can be pointed out a transformation of U.S. army after World War II and the second is the transformation of U.S. army after September 11, 2001. These efforts of the military were important and indispensable, as transformations in some cases are vital, for example the transformation after September 11, 2001.

Major points: To begin with, it should be noted that the transformation of the United States army considers, first of all, the strategic reorientation of the Army of the United States. The practical implementation of this process has been conducted for several times from 1947. Although, this process is not the only transformation in history, it is operated with such effort and such high expectations. The essay will analize the nature of transformations, the importance of the changes and their implementation.


The transformation in the United States Army has faced the strategic reorientation of the Army of the United States, and it represents the armed. The practical implementations of the processes of transformation have occurred in different years. The transformation is regarded as most important structural measure since 1947, and it is following its completion was made in 2007. This process is not the only transformation in history, but it has its intentions and expectations.

II. Comparison and contrast of the efforts by the U.S. military to transform

A. Key factors that led to the perceived or actual need to transform

The effort by the in 1944 the U.S. military to transform was made after the World War II. Congress took the initiative to create a structure that coordinates the actions of the military. In 1945, the U.S. Army, Navy and U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff had developed a plan to create such a structure. On December 19, 1945, U.S. President Harry Truman sent a message to the U.S. Congress with a proposal to considering the creation of a unified Department of Homeland Security, which would report to the Ministry of Transport. The proposal considered by Congress was beginning in April 1946, but in July 1946, the committee expressed concern about the Navy because of the proposed concentration of command of all kinds of troops by one ministry. In February 1947, Harry Truman sent to Congress a new bill on the establishment of the Ministry of Defence, where he was extensively discussed and modified over several months and eventually was adopted, according to Transforming the U.S. military (2003).

Then, on July 26, 1947 Harry Truman signs a “National Security Act of 1947”, which prescribes the national Defense Ministry (National Military Establishment) to start working on Sept. 18, 1947, and a day later, James Forrestal appointed the first minister of security. But due to the fact that the agency had a very unpleasant acronym (National Military Establishment – NME – similar to the pronunciation of the word «Enemy» – an enemy), it was decided to rename it. On August 10, 1949 National Defense Ministry was renamed as the Ministry of Defence and the Minister received additional authority over the military departments of Army, naval and air forces, according to Foreign Affairs (2005).

“The Pentagon” – is a common metonymy Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence is based in the Pentagon, in Arlington, Virginia, on the other side of the Potomac River from Washington. It was created as a result of combining the War Department (founded in 1789), the Navy Department (founded in 1798, before the Admiralty Board, founded in 1780) and the Department of the Air Force.The Ministry was created to reduce the competition between the various military departments, which was formed after the Second World War. It includes the departments of infantry, naval, air and amphibious forces. And also the Ministry includes several non-military agencies such as the National Security Agency and Military Intelligence Agency, according to No. 4 Military Transformation (2010). All these transformations were essential after the World War II.

In wartime, the Ministry of Defense also has authority to manage the Coast Guard, in peacetime; this body is controlled by the Ministry of Internal Security (Department of Homeland Security – DHS). Before the creation of DHS, the Coast Guard monitored by the Ministry of Transport (Department of Transportation).The Coast Guard since the Second World War, officially was not a military organization, but sometimes it takes part in military actions, and represents the law, according to Military transformation (2002).

Structure of the Ministry of Defence is defined in the law of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986. The law as to the procedure, controls the higher ranks of the U.S. Army. The main one is the U.S. president, followed by the defense minister, then regional commanders who commanded troops in the region assigned to them. Joint Chiefs of Staff and some of its members are responsible for the readiness of the U.S. Army and serve as presidential military advisers, but do not obey the command unit. Joint Chief of Staff of law can only be an officer in the U.S. high rank, according to Elements of defense transformation (2003).

The second effort of the U.S. military to transform was made after Sept. 11, 2001 and oriented to fight terrorism. This effort has made the U.S. army more mobile and effective. During the 1990s the U.S. Army learned on the removal of the main opponent of the former Soviet Union and drastic cuts in military spending. Currently, the 11 September 2001, changed the strategy of the Pentagon, however, already from simple cuts, downsizing and reductions towards the so-called “transformation”. This doctrine focuses the army on fast, efficient fight of a transfer of massive units, such as in the Second Gulf War. The need for a new kind of warfare, the Pentagon saw the projected security situation in the 21st Century. Here are four ways to cover the military challenge: traditional, inter-governmental, unknown or irregular, post-catastrophic and disruptive. Overall, a calming of the global security situation was not in sight. The strategic objective was inferred from the characteristic doctrine Relevant and Ready… Today and Tomorrow stated: muster at any time as soon as possible a large enough military power and so the mission to fulfill the Army. The four pillars of the current transformation will be seen in the following four factors: Ready-to-ground combat power in support of Combatant Commanders well-trained and equipped soldiers – “to serve as a warrior under adaptive superior”; Living standards and welfare for all members of the Army; an infrastructure that provides an adequate strategic projection. Risk factors for the transformation were a too-adaptive adversary, under-funding seen at high operating speeds and other excessive cost to the Army as a whole. The strategic development of the transformation was already under the Defence William Perry and William Cohen, according to United States Joint Forces Command (2010).

Of a clear minority among the officers backed out of the spiritual father of the current transformation of General Schoomaker Rumsfeld in the implementation of structural measure, which ultimately lead to his appointment 35th Chief of Staff of the Army. To bridge the transition period of structural adjustment, the alarm was Schoomaker force? allocating additional 30,000 troops. Despite recruiting difficulties, the experience of all branches of the armed forces of the U.S., armed forces at present because of the unmanageable situation in Iraq, there were already 60% of the army budget in personnel costs. The U.S. Army has to pay for the transformation from funds earmarked for other expenses (10,000 soldiers cost 1.4 billion U.S. dollars). The 4th Infantry Division completed the reorganization of 16 December 2004 as the first off, according to Military transformation (2002).

There are certain factors and political situations that led need to transform and these transformations resulted beneficial in the future. Proper measures were taken and the necessary changes were implemented to guarantee the sense of the transformations.

B. Key policies enacted to effect the desired transformation

After certain situations occur, and taking into cosndieration that they are unexpected, the proper decisions are made and quickly implemented in order to be able to control them. Current issues and the problems that arise make departments act and use new approaches and transformate. Key policies are the methods that have to be implemented urgently and provide people with safety. The need for a new kind of war saw the U.S. Department of Defense by the projected security situation in the 21st Century. It covered its view, the four forms of military challenge: Government armed forces and military groups recognized that too old or modern, are challenging the might of the United States in traditional conflicts (war, remaining nuclear weapons), Governmental and non-state actors may also use irregular methods of warfare, such as riots, terrorism, civil war, ethnic cleansing and the like, to undermine the clout of the United States. Similar disaster threats posed by possible terrorist renegade splinter groups, that were trying to use mass destruction weapons or tactical or strategic missile warheads, which they might be seized in order to paralyze the strength of the U.S, according to Military transformation (2002). This occurred after the September 11, 2011, when the military transformation was extremely important. All in all, the desired transformation can be reached by careful analysis of the transformation, of the perspectives that it will bring and of the outcome it will give. As well, the transformation has to provide society with benefits.

C. The leading forces that shaped policies pursued in order to achieve the transformation.

The leading forces that shaped policies are pursued in order to achieve the transformation, as using the proper and beneficial policy will ensure the positive outcome. Modular brigade structure: as a starting point of the transformation there is a increased emphasis of smaller units. As a focal point of the organization of the U.S. Army to serve the brigade level (2,000-5,000 men), in contrast to the current emphasis of the division (10000-20000 man). At the same time, the doctrine of the Major Theater War replaced, which enabled the U.S. Army to contest two major regional wars simultaneously. The soldiers must be able to be transferred under certain circumstances, possibly in two completely different purposes in a row. Furthermore, this new structure enables the Brigade in a position to conduct independent operations significantly in the operations area without being overly dependent on higher-level command structures such as the division, according to Army Transformation Roadmap (2003).

For example, in some cases, office was focused on the existing divisions of 15,000 men, all units at the central armored divisions. In shifting the maximum combat power to the brigades that are smaller, so that from 33 brigades in the active units in 2003 in 2007- 42-43 combat brigades, each man to the estimated end of the transformation. These are complemented by 75 well modular support units, so that created some 120 brigades. The National Guard is made from 28 and 78 combat support brigades, the United States Army Reserve from 58 support brigades, according to U.S. Military Transformation: Not Just More Spending, But Better Spending (2003).

Education plays a crucial role in the transformation. In planning the acquisition of the target had been repeatedly criticized as a weak point in the chain of events leading up to the destruction of the target. Therefore, the number of scouts was raised in a brigade. This was caused by a reduction in the artillery troops, which was made possible by the increasing combination of the armed forces. There will be ыгср types of fighting brigades: Infantry (including paratroopers), and Stryker armored brigades. The organization of the unit is changing, with the current Cavalry Regiment is in many respects as a model.

D. An assessment as to how well the military organization under investigation achieved its desired end state.

The military organization under investigation achieved its goals, as the problems arise and changes have to be implemented. Necessary transformations are always essential, as the changes are necessary in the organization of military and their work, according to U.S. Military Transformation: Not Just More Spending, But Better Spending (2003).

The restructured headquarters consist of over 1,000 soldiers, include about 200 officers. They are broken down as follows: a command staff, planning of missions and directs; a mobile command group for the case that the brigades are in motion; two tactical command posts, to accompany the transmission of the command staff of the brigades; liaison officer for public relations and civil affairs; and a special unit with a safety and a news company. Divisions continue to be commanded by two-star generals, except in the case of the massing of units or diplomatic agreements. In addition to maintaining regional commanders, their functions in the future, and hold less leadership and they are more responsible for the coordination of its major units, according to Military transformation (2002).

In contrast to the current training of soldiers is it essential to provide so-called Combat Training Centers for comprehensive training of the soldiers. Even before the Iraq war, all infantrymen had to go through an intensive course in urban warfare, given that they had been estimated by the commanders inadequately prepared. There are always expected positive changes and the transformations always have perspectives, which can be clearly seen in the examples reviewed in the essay.


To sum it up, it can be said that the soldiers can apply different approaches as they prepare for the challenges that lie ahead. There are many issues that have to be solved and evaluated during the transformations. It can be said that the transformation is extremely important in the modern world with the current threats. The types of the threats have changed, as well as the strategies and tactics. That is why, it is essential to make certain transformations in the sphere. The examples of the transformations are transformation of U.S. army after World War II and the second is transformation of U.S. army after Sept. 11, 2001. In the essay these efforts were compared and the challenges were evaluated.
The transformation brings a new procurement policy to the U.S. Army. Advertised equipment comes in part only in the completely newly organized army to bear. Injustices with regard to modern equipment have already generated several times in the military history of the U.S. displeasure with the soldiers. Modernization and transformations are essential in the modern economics and politics, as well as innthe military.
In coming years, U.S. military will concentrate their resources on five main areas: the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, intelligence, preparation for information warfare (defense information systems and communications of the United States and, accordingly, the destruction of similar systems of the enemy), the struggle for military air superiority (emphasis on the development of unmanned aerial vehicles), and, as well as the development of military space systems. All in all, it can be said that U.S. military transformation has many advantages and after certain events it is almost indispensable.


Army Transformation Roadmap (2003). The United States Army. Retrieved March 17, 2011 from http://www.army.mil/2003TransformationRoadmap/
Elements of defense transformation (2003). Department of Defence. Retrieved March 17, 2011 from http://www.iwar.org.uk/rma/resources/transformation/elements-of-transformation.pdf
Max Boot (2005). Foreign Affairs Retrieved March 17, 2011 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/60626/max-boot/the-struggle-to-transform-the-military
Military transformation (2002). A Strategic Approach. Department of Defence Retrieved March 17, 2011 from http://www.iwar.org.uk/rma/resources/transformation/military-transformation-a-strategic-approach.pdf
No. 4 Military Transformation (2010). Bush’s Foreign Policy Successes. Retrieved March 17, 2011 from http://www.realclearworld.com/lists/bush_foreign_policy/us_military.html
Transforming the U.S. military (2003). Department of Defense. Retrieved March 17, 2011 from http://www.defense.gov/specials/transform/intro.html
United States Joint Forces Command (2010). Supporting the Warfighter. Retrieved March 17, 2011 from http://www.jfcom.mil/
U.S. Military Transformation: Not Just More Spending, But Better Spending (2003). Status Military Reform Project. Retrieved March 17, 2011 from http://cdi.org/program/document.cfm?documentid=1078&programID=37&from_page=../friendlyversion/printversion.cfm