What Should The U S Army Learn From History Determining The Strategy Of The Future Through Understanding The Past

What Should the U.S. Army Learn From History? - Determining the Strategy of the Future through Understanding the Past

This monograph examines the potential utility of history as a source of education and possible guidance for the U.S. Army. The author considers the worth in the claim that since history (more accurately termed the past) is all done and gone, it can have no value for today as we try to look forward. This point of view did not find much favor here. The monograph argues that although history does not repeat itself in detail, it certainly does so roughly in parallel circumstances. Of course, much detail differs from one historical case to another, but nonetheless, there are commonly broad and possibly instructive parallels that can be drawn from virtually every period of history, concerning most circumstances. Contents: Should the U.S. Army Learn From History? Understanding the Past: A Foreign Country? Persisting Concerns and Enduring Hazards A Familiar Past? Parallels and Analogies What Changes and What Does Not? What Can the U.S. Army Learn From History? Recommendations for the U.S. Army

Professional Journal of the United States Army

Use of Services for Family Planning and Infertility, United States, 1982

The 1982 statistics on the use of family planning and infertility services presented in this report are preliminary results from Cycle III of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. Data were collected through personal interviews with a multistage area probability sample of 7969 women aged 15-44. A detailed series of questions was asked to obtain relatively complete estimates of the extent and type of family planning services received. Statistics on family planning services are limited to women who were able to conceive 3 years before the interview date. Overall, 79% of currently mrried nonsterile women reported using some type of family planning service during the previous 3 years. There were no statistically significant differences between white (79%), black (75%) or Hispanic (77%) wives, or between the 2 income groups. The 1982 survey questions were more comprehensive than those of earlier cycles of the survey. The annual rate of visits for family planning services in 1982 was 1077 visits /1000 women. Teenagers had the highest annual visit rate (1581/1000) of any age group for all sources of family planning services combined. Visit rates declined sharply with age from 1447 at ages 15-24 to 479 at ages 35-44. Similar declines with age also were found in the visit rates for white and black women separately. Nevertheless, the annual visit rate for black women (1334/1000) was significantly higher than that for white women (1033). The highest overall visit rate was for black women 15-19 years of age (1867/1000). Nearly 2/3 of all family planning visits were to private medical sources. Teenagers of all races had higher family planning service visit rates to clinics than to private medical sources, as did black women age 15-24. White women age 20 and older had higher visit rates to private medical services than to clinics. Never married women had higher visit rates to clinics than currently or formerly married women. Data were also collected in 1982 on use of medical services for infertility by women who had difficulty in conceiving or carrying a pregnancy to term. About 1 million ever married women had 1 or more infertility visits in the 12 months before the interview. During the 3 years before interview, about 1.9 million women had infertility visits. For all ever married women, as well as for white and black women separately, infertility services were more likely to be secured from private medical sources than from clinics. The survey design, reliability of the estimates and the terms used are explained in the technical notes.