December 02, 2016
Why the Trump Administration Should Adopt a Mission-Oriented Combatant Command Structure
It’s often said that to determine someone’s priorities, take a look at how they spend their time and their money. Organizations are no different. Glancing at an organizational chart does not just reveal reporting relationships – it depicts the organization’s focus. In the U.S. military, the combatant commands organize time (planning) and money (resources). They currently reflect an immediate post-Cold War institutional shift toward a regional orientation that does not match modern needs. Chairman Dunford argued this spring that future “conflicts are very quickly going to spread across multiple combatant commanders, geographic boundaries and functions” and the current planning process is muddled and does not prioritize threats. The Unified Command Plan (UCP) should be updated to reflect the priorities of the U.S. military by disbanding the geographic combatant commands and replacing them with mission-oriented commands.
Read the full article at The National Interest.
More from CNAS
-
Defense / Technology & National Security
Stop Obsessing Over AGIWhat’s lacking? Thoughtful, deliberate, and evidence-based deployment and adoption strategies....
By Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan
-
Defense / Transatlantic Security
Who Should Coordinate Europe’s Defense Buildup?Who will coordinate the surge in defense spending about to get underway?...
By Sara Moller
-
Defense / Technology & National Security
Ukrainians Build Low-Tech Defense Against Russian DronesIn Ukraine, one weapon has revolutionized the battlefield: the drone. It's cheap, precise and widely available. Many of them are now immune to high-tech jamming. In southern U...
By Samuel Bendett
-
Strategy in Contention: Debating America’s Global Priorities
Does the United States need a new playbook — or just fewer plays? In this charged episode, big ideas collide over how to sequence American power across the Middle East, Europe...
By Stacie Pettyjohn