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
-
How Are Drones Changing the Landscape of Modern Warfare?
Podcast
As an increasing number of countries have begun to manufacture and export their own array of military drones, many are concerned about how drone technology is presenting a big...
By Stacie Pettyjohn
-
Commentary
Defense / Technology & National Security
The Dawn of Automated WarfareDrone-on-drone battle is now a central part of the war....
By Greg Grant & Eric Schmidt
-
Commentary
Defense / Technology & National Security
Stop Obsessing Over AGIWhat’s lacking? Thoughtful, deliberate, and evidence-based deployment and adoption strategies....
By Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan
-
Commentary
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
