U. S. Army Command and General Staff Col

This book is a historical analysis of Major General Joseph J. Reynolds and his division during the Battle of Chickamauga. Chickamauga was the division's first major engagement. Arriving at the battlefield the first day, amidst a fierce Confederate offensive, the division was separated into brigades and regiments. The various units were piecemealed into battle, operating independently of their division commander's control. Division experiences included a desperate charge and the crushing route of an entire brigade. On the second day, the division withstood an initial Confederate onslaught in which the Union line was cut in half. After an attack south of the division's position, the division was forced back, and eventually ordered to withdraw. The day ended with another charge, attacking a threat to the retreating Union army. The division's performance varied during the two-day battle, its reputation neither enhanced or scorned. General Reynolds did not distinguish himself at Chickamauga. Although not a subject of official inquiry, he was never again to command troops in the Civil War. This study analyzes Reynolds and his division at the Battle of Chickamauga and draws conclusions as to the proximate causes of the performance. These causes include division disposition, division control, and a focus on Reynolds' leadership and decisions

The purpose of this book was to obtain a historically rooted understanding of the development, application, and adaptation of the British COIN approach-one from which the US has borrowed heavily. It focuses upon those factors which interfere with timely, adaptive application of current COIN doctrine as soon as the warning signs of insurgency present themselves. The price of failing to do so in terms of blood and treasure has been widely proclaimed daily in the news media during the past decade of American and British involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.Authors on both sides of the Atlantic have already made much of the US Army's failure to capture COIN lessons from Vietnam and its abandonment of COIN education in its schools after the 1970s. For this reason, most American commanders went into Iraq with no doctrinal guide for COIN, a deficiency corrected only after painful reflection on the characteristics of the environment and the inefficacy of the conventional methods they initially employed. The British Army, on the other hand, went into Iraq with a COIN doctrine revised five times since the completion of its successful operations in Malaya, 1948-1960, including a version published only two years prior to entry into Iraq. Why did the British Army struggle with identifying insurgency and application of its own corresponding doctrine?

In November, 1950, the United States Army suffered one of its most devastating defeats ever, in the frozen mountains of North Korea at the hands of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. This defeat fundamentally changed the nature of the Korean War. It was, however, avoidable.This Chinese victory was partially the result of one of the most glaring failures in U.S. military intelligence history. The officer most responsible for this failure was the Far East Command Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence (G2), Major General Charles Andrew Willoughby. His inaccurate intelligence picture contributed to General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's flawed understanding of the nature of the Chinese Communist intent.

Military command-and-control structures must adapt to the environment in which they operate. Following World War II, command and control evolved to meet the conditions of the postwar era. Sixty years later, the international system has again changed significantly. Military structures should evolve accordingly, placing particular emphasis on establishing a task-oriented approach to unity of command.This book follows the history of the evolutionary process of the Unified Command Plan (UCP) throughout the Cold War with a progressive look to the future of unity of command in the military. Given the fundamentally different geopolitical construct brought about in the current age, the author argues for a complete revision of the UCP based on distinct functional missions instead of the regional construct as is the practice today. The argument proposes unifying command based on mission, readiness, and sustainability. This recommendation boils down to a choice between a total overhaul, with all its political liabilities and organizational dissension, or to a continual process of incremental changes to the UCP as is the practice today.The author argues that the UCP should align the available military resources to the tasks assigned. The standing Joint Task Force concept should be used more to provide warfighter forces and peacekeeping forces to combatant commanders in order to accomplish National Security Strategy objectives.Studying the history of, and maturation of, unified command in the military displays how cultural, philosophical, doctrinal, and organizational differences among services (as well as among other government agencies) present problems to efficiency and effectiveness. The traditional military structure used to engage in foreign policy is no longer suitable for future challenges.Throughout this history, the military in general realized that unity of effort and unity of command are vitally important when aligned to efficient and effective joint military operations. The lessons learned over the history of unified command can provide valuable suggestions for unifying the National Security Strategy among government and non-government agencies. This coordination relies on understanding the intricacies of each unified command and how they align with different government agencies. The current UCP is structured to ensure military strategy maintains security at home while promoting regional stability abroad in line with the current National Security Strategy. But the current UCP is not structured to ensure efficient operations across the entire national security establishment.

In the aftermath of World War II, the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, so loathed yet respected the Great German General Staff that he called for its complete destruction on at least two separate occasions. Regardless of whether the individual's view of the Great German General Staff, with its Prussian roots, is revulsion or admiration, the fact remains that in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries, no better system existed.While the Prussian General Staff solidified its position in history during the German Wars of Unification, the United States Army, under leaders such as Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, sought to enhance the level of professionalism and excellence throughout the American Army. To this end, these leaders certainly sought to study and incorporate elements of the Prussian General Staff. Unfortunately, American political, military and national culture and strategic position thwarted their efforts. It was not until the deficiencies of the Spanish-American War highlighted the weaknesses in the American military system that Prussian style reforms became possible. The change in strategic position after the war with Spain combined with the identified need to improve military processes brought about enough of a change to the appropriate aspects of American culture that incorporating elements of the Prussian system became possible.

Coalition warfare has been, and will continue to be, a matter of course for the U.S. military. Developing and maintaining coalitions of politically and militarily diverse members is, at its most elemental level, a matter of human relationships -the person-toperson give and take that characterizes all human endeavor. It is often complex, inexact, and tedious, perhaps more art than science.The frustration encountered by policymakers and military professionals alike argues strongly for an earnest examination of the personal characteristics and professional principles used by successful coalition builders, liaisons, and advisors. This paper examines the contributions made by T. E. Lawrence to the art of coalition liaison during his service as the British advisor to the Arabs during World War I. Specifically, it identifies the personal characteristics that helped Lawrence work so effectively with the Arabs, as well as the professional principles that guided his actions as he helped form the coalition of Arab tribes and the alliance between those tribes and Britain.

This study is an analysis of historical factors which form the basis for past U.S. wartime press censorship by the U.S. armed forces and the significance these factors have on future U.S. military operations. These factors are: the relative success of past voluntary and involuntary censorship and press restrictions, the effects of evolving technology on censorship, and the recurring debate over censorship which preceded each of our conflicts.The analysis shows an evolution of wartime press censorship from the colonial era to the Panama intervention, Operation Just Cause, and traces in depth the following conclusions: improvement in news gathering technology initially resulted in the perception that reporting from theaters of war must be formally restricted to protect operational security and America's tradition of press freedom and the "people's right to know" have now outweighed the need for formal protection of operational security.The study concludes that technology, Congressional reluctance to curb the news media, and the desire of the armed forces to inspire confidence and trust have combined to eliminate censorship organization and procedures from U.S. military planning, force structure, and capabilities.

For over four years during World War I, Lieutenant Colonel (Later Major General) Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck, commander of the German Schutztruppe led the men of the British East African Expeditionary Force on a chase over some of the most inhospitable terrain imaginable. As the commander of German forces in East Africa, he was the author of one of the most successful guerrilla fights in history. His innovative and creative solutions to daily problems proved to be the undoing of a succession of British commanders, allowing him to bleed Allied forces from European fronts. Although he never had more than 3,000 European and 15,000 native soldiers, von Lettow-Vorbeck consumed the efforts of over 250,000 Allied (mostly British) soldiers. Von Lettow-Vorbeck and the men of the Schutztruppe are little known outside of Germany, but they were never defeated and have the distinction of being the only Germans of World War I to occupy British soil. Despite their successes, their exploits remain obscured in thegreater tragedy of the Great War.