Example collocations logo

Military in sentence

8691 examples of Military in a sentence

These principles can and should underpin strong economic, diplomatic, and military relationships throughout the region today.
It has led us to devote more resources and effort to building our partners’ capabilities and improving interoperability between the US military and forces in the region.
In 2013, we will engage for the first time in multilateral military exercises led by ASEAN, while China has been invited to send ships to RIMPAC 2014.
In Northeast Asia, where the US military has traditionally maintained a strong presence, we are modernizing our posture.
The US military is also rebalancing within the Asia-Pacific region to place more emphasis on new partnerships in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean.
The US military is a global force that can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Finally, some question whether, given America’s fiscal constraints, the US military can make the investments necessary to implement the rebalance.
We have a detailed plan for the rebalance in our budget, and we have made decisions that will make our military more cost-effective, efficient, and productive.
Thailand’s Stunted TransitionBANGKOK – One year after Thailand’s 12th military coup in its 83 years under constitutional rule, and as the controversial trial for criminal negligence of former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra gets under way, the country’s future is perilously uncertain.
Thailand’s new military leaders view themselves as a kind of cleanup crew, tasked with eradicating corruption, keeping politicians in line, and restoring the old order, underpinned by a symbiotic relationship between the military and the monarchy, with the bureaucracy handling day-to-day governance.
To be sure, Thailand’s military rulers do not reject responsiveness to public demands or deny the imperatives of adapting to globalization.
Indeed, the second major factor shaping the post-coup interregnum was the impeachment of Yingluck Shinawatra, the sister of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was deposed by the military in 2006 and remains abroad in self-imposed exile.
Military rule has cleared the streets, locked down the political system, and ushered in a long transition to some new, as-yet-undefined arrangement.
While the anti-coup forces support a return to electoral democracy, the pro-coup coalition, led by the Democrat Party, is increasingly realigning itself against the military, in the hope of securing power in whatever post-coup system emerges.
Croatian military offensives, first in early May 1995, and a second in early August, had taken back three of four United Nations-protected sectors from separatist Serb control.
In such a scenario, military interventions will continue, but not in the postmodern form aimed at upholding order (exemplified by Western powers’ opposition to genocide in Kosovo and Sierra Leone).
Not only is the US military busy trying in Iraq, but the way the US went into Iraq - which proved to have fewer nuclear capabilities than Iran - undermined American credibility, making it difficult to recruit allies to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions.
From 2001 when Thaksin first became prime minister, to 2007 under military rule, Thailand’s corruption ranking plunged from an already low 61 to 84, which puts the country in the same league as Gabon and Swaziland, two countries notorious for violent and corrupt leaders who routinely trample on their citizens’ rights.
Thailand’s public sector is historically plagued by frequent military coups, managed with rare exception by incompetent generals and civilians who rule with condescension towards the people who pay them to serve.
While a relatively small business, military, and political elite misgoverned Thailand – often cynically, and sometimes incompetently – others in Asia, with more selfless and competent public servants, succeeded in finding their competitive niche in the modern world.
Given the UK’s economic, political, and military significance, Brexit will leave a gaping hole in the EU.
It has used that power, first, to stop NATO’s expansion into territories that Russia considers vital to its own security, thereby averting the large-scale war that expansion would inevitably have brought; and, second, to forestall yet another illegitimate Western effort to bring about regime change, this time in Syria (where Russia has demonstrated both military might and diplomatic prowess).
CAMBRIDGE – No country in modern history has possessed as much global military power as the United States.
By the outbreak of World War I, Britain ranked only fourth among the great powers in terms of military personnel, fourth in terms of GDP, and third in military spending.
But, by this definition, nineteenth-century Britain – which at the height of its power in 1870 ranked third (behind the US and Russia) in GDP and third (behind Russia and France) in military expenditures – could not be considered hegemonic, despite its naval dominance.
Similarly, those who speak of American hegemony after 1945 fail to note that the Soviet Union balanced US military power for more than four decades.
Though the US had disproportionate economic clout, its room for political and military maneuver was constrained by Soviet power.
But, from a political or military standpoint, the world was bipolar, with the Soviet Union balancing America’s power.
Against this background, “primacy” seems like a more accurate description of a country’s disproportionate (and measurable) share of all three kinds of power resources: military, economic, and soft.
The threat is economic rather than military.
BackNext