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
-
Moving Beyond A2/AD
Commentary
The next National Defense Strategy should reconceptualize the military challenges China and Russia pose....
By Chris Dougherty
-
Back to the Future: Transforming the U.S. Army for High-Intensity Warfare in the 21st Century
Commentary
The Army’s transformation remains a work in progress and potential pitfalls still lurk on the horizon....
By Billy Fabian
-
Next Generation Defense Strategy: Missile Defense
Commentary
The next administration needs to more fully consider missile defense in the context of strategic deterrence....
By Sarah Mineiro
-
Making Critical Choices for Better Posture Approaches
Commentary
The U.S. Department of Defense must make critical choices in the next NDS to better link strategic objectives with posture in support of U.S. interests....
By Becca Wasser
