When it comes to the management of a military force, how is it that the United States coalition manages their forces? One way that they do this is through the employment of a network management system. In other words, this is simply a computer program that is designed to maintain records on the various aspects of the functioning of a military unit, and to collect reports, data, analysis, and in many cases, prescribe necessary action. Some examples of the types of information that can be included by a military unit under the provisions of a coalition management system include: personnel records (including records of pay and other performance evaluations); performance evaluation data; training records; training records (including test results and completion percentages); equipment usage records; and, medical records. It is for these reasons that it is so important for a United States coalition to ensure that their members are kept up to date on any important changes that happen within their armed forces. In order to keep all of this information organized and easy to access, it is often required that the United States Department of Defense maintain its own system of coordination. Because all aspects of a military force can potentially have an impact on each other, it is necessary for a centralized data repository to exist in order to track everything that happens within the entity as a whole. This is usually accomplished through a multi-party negotiation process. The multi-party negotiation process can take one of several different forms,and this is because of the nature of the issues involved. For example, some coalition entities will begin negotiations with representatives from all of the different components of the coalition. While no one person is at the table with a firm commitment to the outcome, these negotiations often go something like this: the representative from the United States begins the conversation by letting the other party know what steps they would like the United States to take, offering options, and stating their desire to seek a united front. At this point, the other party offers their own suggestions, often modifying their original offer or even entirely altering it. The negotiations move forward through a series of back-room meetings, interspersed with formal negotiations, until a final consensus is reached. The major lessons include the value of multiparty negotiations, how important it is to maintain the integrity of the overall military effort, and how important it is for each component of a coalition to have a voice beyond the group that represents them. There are other ways that smaller components within a coalition can get involved in the overall effort. Congress, for example, may establish a Joint Chiefs committee to serve as the central clearing house and forum for information exchange and dialogue on the topic. This "commander-in-chief" forum can be especially useful in coordinating information requests from various components of the coalition. The committee can also provide a venue for conducting meetings between the service secretaries, cabinet members, and congressmen, as well as serving as a location for press conferences and information sharing opportunities. Some groups within a coalition may choose to take matters into their own hands. Smaller, special interest groups often have strong desires for increasing their clout in Washington, D.C., and using their newfound influence to press their case before a more partisan U.S. Congress and to increase spending and authority. These groups would lobby to create legislation that furthers their mission, raises funds for their particular projects, and increases the likelihood that their request will be taken seriously. Similarly, cncs can use their newfound clout to build support for their legislative proposals at both the state and national level. Another group that has the potential to utilize its newfound power to push its case is the armed forces. Since the Vietnam War, many members of the military have felt alienated by congressional policies. While the armed services are legally bound to follow the orders of Congress, they also feel politically vulnerable, particularly in the face of sequestration. A group of retired military officers formed the advocacy group Citizens for A Military Choice, which is now urging the armed forces to voice their opposition to sequestration in this way. If other coalition service members use similar leverage to press their concerns within their units, it may spark a new wave of interest in political and policy issues among coalition personnel. To gain more knowledge on this topic, go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
|