Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

The United States stands alone at a critical crossroad in the evolutionary and revolutionary journey of the nation-state system. As the sole surviving superpower, at the close of the most war-ravaged century in the history of mankind, we possess the opportunity to decide which path we will pursue into the next millennium. Our choices are basic: lead, follow, or get out of the way. Superficially, all of these choices appear as realistic philosophies of statecraft; however, a deeper analysis reveals that assuming the leadership role is fundamentally idealistic. Considering the savage history of the nation-state system, the United States has an obligation to pursue a philosophy of statecraft that promotes our humanistic values if we are to survive and progress as a race of people in the global community.

Teaching on Matthew Chapter 16 and 19:16-30.

This is a fight against powerful interests. Leaders need to lead. So my message to Republicans on this issue is this: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. #ClimateTownHall https://t.co/wlmLkwCbfe Source: https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1169378629748498432 Uploader: Kamala Harris

This is a fight against powerful interests. Leaders need to lead. So my message to Republicans on this issue is this: Lead, follow, or get out of the way. #ClimateTownHall https://t.co/wlmLkwCbfe Source: https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1169378629748498432 Uploader: Kamala Harris

Includes bibliographical references

This paper reviews the history, structure, role and responsibilities of the ICC, and then discusses US policy and the main objections the United States has to the ICC. It outlines and discusses three possible courses of action for the United States in regards to the ICC. The paper concludes with a recommended course of action for the United States to take that is in concert with its position as the world's remaining super power.

200 p. : 21 cm

200 p. : 21 cm

We discuss Episode Nine: Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way.

"An Avant leadership guide."

Lead Me, Follow Me, Or Get Out of My Way - Rethinking and Refining the Civil-Military Relationship (2012)

Lead Me, Follow Me, Or Get Out of My Way - Rethinking and Refining the Civil-Military Relationship (2012)

v, 153 p. ; 22 cm

Thank you for watching and please be sure to subscribe to our channel! Hit the "Notification Bell" for more content.

Thank you for watching and please be sure to subscribe to our channel! Hit the "Notification Bell" for more content.

Scripture:  Matthew 4: 12-23

The 7 December 2005 National Security Presidential Directive designated the Department of State (DOS) to be the lead agency for coordinating, synchronizing and conducting Reconstruction and Stabilization (R&S) operations clearly identifies the United States Government interest in transitioning operations to assist the Afghanistan central government in securing its country in order to develop long-term stability and order. For the interim, however, the sole cabinet level organization that possesses the ability to conduct reconstruction and stability operations is the Department of Defense (DOD). The DOD is the only organization manned, staffed, equipped and funded to execute the nation's R&S requirement today. Realizing this reality the DOD has taken steps to broaden its scope through the publication and implementation of DOD Directive 3000.05 direct that stability, security, transition and reconstruction (SSTR) operations be treated as a core military mission and to broaden its planning guidance and training to more fully address post-conflict operations. The DOD serving as the ad hoc lead agency for the interim period is more out of necessity than preference until the DOS and other executive branch organizations expand their manning, equipment and resource capacity to take the lead role. Having the DOD serve in the lead for the interim is not a negative reflection on the contributions being made by other executive branch organizations; their roles are vital to current operations, however, their capacity is limited and must be expanded to effectively take the lead role. DOD is capable of effectively leading R&S operations now while other executive branch organizations build their capacity and capabilities and procedures to take the lead in the future.

The 7 December 2005 National Security Presidential Directive designated the Department of State (DOS) to be the lead agency for coordinating, synchronizing and conducting Reconstruction and Stabilization (R&S) operations clearly identifies the United States Government interest in transitioning operations to assist the Afghanistan central government in securing its country in order to develop long-term stability and order. For the interim, however, the sole cabinet level organization that possesses the ability to conduct reconstruction and stability operations is the Department of Defense (DOD). The DOD is the only organization manned, staffed, equipped and funded to execute the nation's R&S requirement today. Realizing this reality the DOD has taken steps to broaden its scope through the publication and implementation of DOD Directive 3000.05 direct that stability, security, transition and reconstruction (SSTR) operations be treated as a core military mission and to broaden its planning guidance and training to more fully address post-conflict operations. The DOD serving as the ad hoc lead agency for the interim period is more out of necessity than preference until the DOS and other executive branch organizations expand their manning, equipment and resource capacity to take the lead role. Having the DOD serve in the lead for the interim is not a negative reflection on the contributions being made by other executive branch organizations; their roles are vital to current operations, however, their capacity is limited and must be expanded to effectively take the lead role. DOD is capable of effectively leading R&S operations now while other executive branch organizations build their capacity and capabilities and procedures to take the lead in the future.

This paper asserts that traditional leadership models are inappropriate for Catholic schools and offers a new paradigm based on transformational Christian leadership. Christian leadership is a function of the group that is not synonymous with position or authority. Everyone has the potential to be a leader. Such leadership is communal, generative of new leaders, service-oriented, and transformative. The best way to lead is to empower others. Leadership based on the leadership of Christ looks to the entire school community to empower others. Contains 39 references. (LMI)

This monograph explains why robust civil-military relations matter and discusses how they are evolving. Without meaningful and reliable civilian control of the military, governments lose some measure of control over the destiny of their nations. In extreme circumstances, a lack of civilian control can even lead to a coup d'etat. Part I discusses A More Perfect Military: How the Constitution Can Make Our Military Stronger, by Diane Mazur, a book that examines the jurisprudence that has reshaped civil-military relations. Mazur maintains that since the Vietnam era, the U.S. Supreme Court has in effect distanced the Armed Forces from general society in order to create a separate -- and more socially conservative -- sphere. Part II discusses The Decline and Fall of the American Republic, by Bruce Ackerman, a wise and wide-ranging book that argues that the nation's polity is in decline and that the increasingly politicized armed forces may force a change in government. Part III asks where we go from here. These important books attribute a thinning of civilian control over the military to specific legal and political decisions. They explain some of the most important implications of this transformation, and they offer proposals about how to improve that critical relationship for the sake of enhancing the effectiveness of the armed forces and the vitality of the republic. The monograph goes on to examine briefly evolving great-power politics, the effects new technologies have on long-standing distinctions and borders, and the relative rise of nonstate actors, including al Qaeda -- three sets of exogenous factors that inevitably drive changes in the civil-military relationship. In the end, the monograph points to a more ambitious enterprise: a complete reexamination of the relationship between force and society.