The United States armed forces reference article from the English Wikipedia on 24-Apr-2004
(provided by Fixed Reference: snapshots of Wikipedia from wikipedia.org)

United States armed forces

People like you are child sponsors

United States armed forces
Military manpower
Military age18 years of age
Availabilitymales age 15-49: 70,819,436 (2001 est.)
Reaching military age annuallymales: 2,039,414 (2001 est.)
Military expenditures
Dollar figure$399.1 billion (FY2004 est.)
Percent of GDP3.2% (FY1999 est.) (greater as of 2004)

The armed forces of the United States of America consist of the

Note: The United States Coast Guard has both military and law enforcement functions. In peacetime it is part of the United States Department of Homeland Security, but in wartime reports to the Department of the Navy.

The combined United States armed forces consists of 1.4 million active duty personnel along with several hundred thousands each in the Reserves and National Guard.

On July 26, 1948 U.S. President Harry S Truman signed Executive Order 9981 which racially desegregated the military of the United States.

Table of contents
1 Budget Comparison
2 Reasons for Large US Military Expenditures
3 Capabilities
4 Organization
5 External Links
6 See also

Budget Comparison

As of 2004 the United States is in the distinct position of being the only nation in the world with a military budget nearly at levels of the Cold War. The United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty biggest spenders combined, and six times larger than Russia's, which places second. The United States and its close allies are responsible for approximately two-thirds of all military spending on Earth (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for two-thirds), dollar for dollar. Military spending accounts for more than half of the United States' Federal discretionary spending, which is all of the Federal government's money not spoken for by pre-existing obligations. [1]

Reasons for Large US Military Expenditures

There exist a number of reasons for comparatively large American military spending.

First, defense expenditures, as any other government spending, is generally some relatively fixed percentage of the nation's budget. USA happens to have a huge GDP, compared to other nations, hence spending 3% of it on defense constitutes a lot of money spent. Other nations, e.g. Syria, Israel, and North Korea, may spend a larger percentage of the budget on defense, for various reasons, but the resulting aggregate spending would be much smaller in dollar terms.

Second, the American military is unique among its peers for its goal to maintain a large number of capabilities. If its only goal were to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent and sufficient forces to defend against a land and sea attack (which are, for example, characteristic goals of Russian and Chinese militaries), it could well have made do with a much smaller budget. However, the goals of American military are much more expansive than that. It is also called upon to maintain the capability to fight and win wars overseas in order to defend American allies and interests in Europe, Asia, and Middle East, and to maintain control over the high seas to protect American trade from disruption. While these aims are often viewed with suspicion in other nations, especially those who view a war against the USA as a possibility, American policy makers (and many others) believe that the world as we know it, and indeed the American economy and budget as we know it, depend on the maintenance of these American capabilities. If American forces were not available to guarantee peace in the Persian Gulf, Taiwan, or Korea, the world might have been a very different place, both politically and economically. For example, in dollar terms, potential losses for the American economy from a war in Korea that may be caused by the belief on the part of the North Korean leadership in inability of the USA adequately supporting its South Korean and Japanese allies, would be no doubt enormous, hence justifying expenditures for the support of South Korea in the eyes of American policy makers.

Third, American military is committed to having a technological edge over its potential enemies and an expensive research program to maintain such an edge. Defense related research over the years yielded such major breakthroughs as space exploration, computers and Internet, nuclear energy, Global Position System, stealth aircraft, "smart" weapons, better bullet-proof vests, microwaves, and more recently lasers that can shoot down cruising missiles. Many of these developments eventually contributed greatly to both the military power and the general technological and economic development of the USA, and often, by means of technology transfer, of other countries. They did, however, demand large expenditures for development. Seen from a purely military standpoint, spending on defense research and better military technology, past and present, constitutes a trade of money for human lives lost in conflict. While poorer nations with less concern for human life may count on winning wars by sacrificing manpower (compare for example North Korea' KCNA regular claims about the willingness of millions of North Koreans to sacrifice themselves for their nation), American military strives to be ready to fight and win with minimum casualties by virtue of superior technology.

Fourth and finally, when comparing defense expenditures in the USA and in other nations, it must be appreciated that the buying power of money is different in different places. For instance, with relatively high American general living standards, paying decent salaries to American soldiers, who are all volunteers serving on a contract, is expensive in absolute terms. By comparison, countries with lower living standards with volunteer militaries (e.g. China or India), as well as those who draft men for the military and pay them only basic living expenses (e.g. Russia, both Koreas, and Taiwan), would spend a lot less in dollar terms to maintain similar personnel strength. Similarly, military technology produced by civilian companies in the USA and bought by the American military would be more expensive than that produced by Chinese companies and for the Chinese military simply because of lower production costs due to lower living standards, even in cases where the technological sophistication of goods procured is equivalent in both cases.

Capabilities

The United States military is also one of the three states (France and the United Kingdom being the others) that are capable of projecting military power at any place in the world. Much of the U.S. military capabilities are tied up in logistics and transportation, which allow rapid buildup of forces as needed. The Air Force maintains a large fleet of C-5A Galaxy, C-17 Starlifter, and C-130 Hercules transportation aircraft. The Marine Corps maintains Marine Expeditionary Units at sea with the Navy's Atlantic and Pacific Fleets. The Navy's fleet of 13 aircraft carriers, combined with a military doctrine of power projection, enable a flexible response to potential threats.

The United States Army is not as portable as the Marine Corps, but Army Chief of Staff General Peter Schoonmaker announced a reorganization of the Army's active-duty units into 48 brigade groups with an emphasis on power projection.

Organization

Under the United States Constitution, the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The President is responsible for ordering the armed forces through the Secretary of Defense to perform an objective. To coordinate military action with diplomatic action, the President has an advisory National Security Council.

During and immediately after World War II, the United States military was organized along lines of command that reported to their respective service chiefs (i.e. General of the Army, Admiral of the Navy). These chiefs in turn reported to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Chiefs of Staff was a body formed by high-level representatives of each service, who elected a Chairman to communicate with the civilian government. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in turn reported to the Secretary of Defense, the civilian head of the military. Both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense reported to the President of the United States, who simultaneously holds the military rank of commander-in-chief.

This system lead to serious counter-productive inter-service rivalry. Peacetime activities (such as procurement and creation of doctrine, etc.) were tailored for each service in isolation. Just as seriously, wartime activities of each service were planned, executed, and evaluated independently. These practices resulted in division of effort, the inability to profit from economies of scale, and inhibited the development of modern warfare doctrine.

The inability to work with other service branches was made apparent with the formulation of AirLand battle doctrine in the late 1970s and early 1980s. AirLand battle was an attempt to synthesize into a single doctrine all of the capabilities of the service arms of the military. This system envisioned ground, naval, air, and space based systems acting in concert to attack and defeat an opponent in depth. Realization of this ideal was impossible due to these structural factors.

To rectify these significant problems, the Goldwater-Nichols act of 1986 provided for the complete reorganization of the United States military command structure. It was the most far-reaching organizational change since the creation of the Air Force as a separate entity in 1947.

Goldwater-Nichols changed the way each service interacted with each other. Rather than reporting to a service chief, each service reported to a commander responsible for a specific function (Transportation, Space, Special Operations), or a geographic region of the globe (Europe, Middle East, etc.), known as the commander-in-chief (CINC) (pronounced "sink"). This combined arms commander would be responsible for fielding a force capable of employing AirLand battle doctrine (or its successors), with all assets available to the military. This allowed combination of effort, integrated planning, shared procurement, and a reduction or elimination in inter-service rivalry between commanders. This addressed a major conflict with Military Science, the rule of unity of command. Individual services changed from war fighting entities into organizational and training units, responsible for readiness. Thus CENTCOM (Central Command) for example, would be assigned air, ground, and naval assets in order to achieve its objective, not the inefficient method of individual services planning, supporting, and fighting the same war.

Shared procurement caused the most notable change in the peacetime military. This allowed technological advances to be quickly suffused throughout the military, and provided other ancillary benefits (such as the interoperability of radios between services, heretofore unknown in the military). Additionally, major technological advances, such as stealth and smart weapons were shared between services without duplication of effort, and joint implementation of new technology allowed for joint development of supporting doctrine.

United States military organization now flows from service arm generals (such as the commander of an Army division or corps), to the appropriate regional or functional CINC. The CINC reports to the Secretary of Defense. Both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the Secretary of Defense report to the president, the national CINC. This profoundly changes the role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It now acts as a military advisory body for the President, without operational control of any regional command. In practice, the CINC advises both the Chairman and the Secretary as to conditions in his area of responsibility. Of course, the Secretary can deputize the Chairman to supervise the CINC, as happened in the Gulf War when Richard Cheney ordered Colin Powell to command Norman Schwarzkopf.

On October 29, 2002, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered the use of the term CINC to be changed to the term "combatant commander" and immediately be used when referring to regional organizations (i.e. USCENTCOM) or "commander" when talking about a specified unit such as the U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). Rumsfeld's reason was his belief that the use of the term drew unfavorable comparisons to the President of the United States, enshrined in the Constitution as the only Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Changing the title was felt to properly clarify the military's role vis a vis the civilian government.

National Command Organizational Chart

                  ----------------President-----------------

                  |           |              |             |

                              |              |             |

                  |           |              |             |

                            SECDEF ----------|             |

                  |           |              |             |

                              |              |             |

                  |           |         Chairman JCOS     NSC

                              |              | 

                  |           |              | 

                              |             JCOS

                  |           |

                              |

                  |           |

 Regional Combatant Commander or Commander (specific command,e.g. STRATCOM)

                              |

                              |

                Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine 

                Responsible commanding General

The United States is a party to the Australia, New Zealand, United States security treaty and the NATO treaty.

AORs for regional Unified Commands
image:Unified Command map s.jpg
Each service is responsible for providing military units to the commanders of the various Unified Commands. As of January 2003, the nine Unified Commands and their commanders are:

External Links

See also