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
-
Beyond Reshoring
Introduction Over the past several years, Congress and the Trump and Biden administrations have made significant efforts to reverse America’s atrophying manufacturing capabili...
By Diem Salmon
-
Franz-Stefan Gady on Why It’s So Hard to Judge Progress or Advantage in Modern Conflict
Franz-Stefan Gady, a defense analyst and consultant in Vienna who is also an adjunct fellow with Center for a New American Security think tank and author of several books incl...
By Franz-Stefan Gady
-
CNAS Insights | The Golden Dome Needs a Strategy
Join us for the CNAS 2026 National Security Conference: New Rules, on Thursday, June 11!...
By Kalena Blake
-
Sec. Pete Hegseth Criticized over D-Day Immigration Speech
Becca Wasser joined CNN | This Morning to discuss the speech given by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to European allies on the anniversary of D-Day. "That moment was not fo...
By Becca Wasser