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
-
America’s Military Risks Losing Its Edge
Commentary
Much about the way the Pentagon operates continues to reflect business as usual, which is inadequate to meet the growing threats posed by a rising China and a revisionist Russ...
By Michèle Flournoy
-
The Pentagon must act now to address vulnerability in its enterprise
Commentary
The Defense Department cannot wait for another stress test before addressing fragility in its enterprise; it must learn and adapt now....
By Tara Murphy Dougherty & Billy Fabian
-
Storm Clouds Ahead: Musings About the 2022 Defense Budget
Commentary
One hopes Washington won’t lose another year as its competitors continue to chip away at America’s conventional overmatch....
By Robert O. Work
-
All About Eve: What Virtual Forever Wars Can Teach us About the Future of Combat
Commentary
The defense world could learn a lot from the gaming world. In some cases, it already has....
By Tom Shugart
