Then SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld designated regional commanders as Combatant Commanders (CCDRs). They were formerly known as a regional Commander-in-Chief (CINC). Which do you prefer?
Printable View
Then SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld designated regional commanders as Combatant Commanders (CCDRs). They were formerly known as a regional Commander-in-Chief (CINC). Which do you prefer?
We now distinguish functional commands and combatant commands, would we go back to calling them regional commands?
Not to take the thread off course, but it may be worthwhile to wander a bit?
A more interesting question might be, should the USG align DoS and DoD regional boundaries? Whose boundaries would be the one which the other aligned to? Would DoS be willing to re-look their C2 and make it more then say a desk, so they emplace an ambassador with a mandate equal to that of a COCOM? What would be the benefits and risks of doing so? Could you co-locate a regional mission (assuming he gets a staff of sorts) with a COCOM HQs? If you set them up on 180 rotational timelines, would you get better continuity? How would you pick these guys, does DoS have a similar system to advance career diplomats to such a position? What about the presidential appointees - where do they fit in?
Anyway...
Best, Rob
Actually, either name is fraught with problems.
Confucians were strongly attached to a program called the rectification of names. "Let the ruler be ruler, the minister minister, the father father and the son son" (Analects, Book 12) In Book 13 of the Analects, we also find this from Confucius
Why not roll the whole shebang into a POSSE (Providers of Strategic Stable Environments) and make the senior member the Sheriff? :DQuote:
Tsze-lu asked, "If the Duke of Wei made you an advisor, what would you address as the very first priority?"
Confucius replied,"The most important thing is to use the correct words."
"What?" Tsze-lu replied. "That's your first priority? The right words?"
Confucius said, "You really are simple, Yu. The Sage keeps his mouth shut when he doesn't know what he's talking about! If we don't use the correct words, we live public lies. If we live public lies, the political system is a sham. When the political system is a sham, civil order and refinement deteriorate. When civil order and refinement deteriorate, injustice multiplies. As injustice multiplies, eventually the electorate is paralyzed by public lawlessness. So the Sage takes for granted that he use the appropriate words, and follow through on his promises with the appropriate deeds. The Sage must simply never speak lies."
Primary Operations Coordinator
Fits whether ops are lethal, non-lethal, or political
Official Benign Emperor...
Edit to add; The OBE is s'posed to be all in caps. Software won't even allow a half 'arted joke nowadays :(
dovetails nicely with the original meaning....Overcome By Events :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
since I tend to like traditions, even if this one started with the Navy.;)
Rob, you are dead on regarding alignment of regions. The UCP and DOS regions can and should be aligned to the extent possible. The exception is NORtHCOM & SOUTHCOM where our current alignment makes sense and so does State's. (We could tweak it a little in the Caribbean but Mexico and Canada belong in NORTHCOM and State's WHA.)
The problem with the idea of regional Ambassadors and rank/responsibility equivalency is twofold: (1) the Ambassador is equivalent of a 4 star and, in his country, outranks the CINC, and (2) the Ambassador does not work for State - he is the personal representative of the President of the US. Putting it in terms that are familiar to us - State is in the chain of communication but not in the chain of command. In fact, a career FSO technically resigns from the Foreign Service to take an Ambassadorship and is reinstated without losing a step when he returns to another job.
Cheers
JohnT
Hi John,
I'd say with regard to achieving Unity of Effort, that is probably just as much of a challenge. I would not be comfortable on a number of levels with ambassadors being subordinate to the GCCs, it would affect the bilateral relations the President had charged them to conduct, and it would probably be construed as a step towards militaristic FP. I'd add the CoC needs to be short as well.Quote:
The problem with the idea of regional Ambassadors and rank/responsibility equivalency is twofold: (1) the Ambassador is equivalent of a 4 star and, in his country, outranks the CINC, and (2) the Ambassador does not work for State - he is the personal representative of the President of the US. Putting it in terms that are familiar to us - State is in the chain of communication but not in the chain of command. In fact, a career FSO technically resigns from the Foreign Service to take an Ambassadorship and is reinstated without losing a step when he returns to another job.
However, what could be an alternative with regards to the coordination between DoS and DoD at a regional level? Even if you had the boundaries in synch, the authority to develop regional approaches would have to come from something stronger then the desks / bureaus within DoS that exist now wouldn't they? What are the functions those desks / bureaus perform (question for anyone)? Are they the same across the board, or do they vary? How do they relate back to the Secretary of State, and eventually inform the President?
It may sound like this is a different thread, but I'd recommend the series of articles Dana Priest wrote a few years back on the CINCs - the 3 part sires on "the Proconsuls"
The tools a state has at its disposal vary in their utility based on the powers, authorities, personalities, lines of communication, organizations and resources allocated to them. The ability to use the tools in conjunction with one another to achieve policy ends seems more art then science based on the conditions from a bilateral, regional and international perspective.
However, is it fair to say that the science - in terms of the organizational structure can be an enabler, facilitator, etc. if it better fits the reality of the ends and the conditions in which those ends are pursued, or that it can be disabler, source of friction, etc. if it is built around conditions that no longer reflect the ends, or the current conditions?
Does the construct and organization of the tools in the box make for us reaching and finding one over another?
Best, Rob
Achieving unity of effort is a huge problem that is now - and always will be - personality dependent. That said, there are some organizational steps that would make it easier. The first is, as you suggest, aligning regional boundaries. This would create habitual relationships among offices, bureaus, desks, etc. in State, OSD, JS, and the CINCDOMS. Those already exist but because the boundaries are not the same, there is a potential for greater confusion.
Second, I would argue for the creation of unity of command in those areas where it would help. In most countries of the world, the Ambassador commands all USG agencies, including the military. DAOs and SAOs work for the Ambassador. (The key is that he can fire them.) But in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (and surrounding countries) nobody is specifically in charge of all USG activities. To what extent does the US Ambassador in Kuwait (or Turkey or Syria) have to support Amb Crocker in Iraq? As far as I know, there is no DOS equivalent of the supported and supporting CINC concept - I hope someone proves me wrong on this. ;) And, in Iraq, who is in charge? Petraeus or Crocker or neither? And why haven't we done something about making CENTCOM support MNF-I? While none of these actions (changes of policy) would resolve the unity of effort problem, they would make it easier to solve by making it a subset, unity of command problem.
A final note: Dana Priest was writing in the Clinton Administration when the military isde of DOD was riding high. Tony Zinni had much more leeway than Tommy Franks, John Abizaid, or Fallon and the JS dominated OSD. That brings up a realted question: How do we strike a reasonable balance between OSD and the JS?
Cheers
JohnT
How many of those responding in favor of CINC are old fogies like me and how many are young whippersnappers? Same question for those in favor of the new terms?
Obviously, my hypothesis is that the results will reflect a generational divide.
Cheers
JohnT
PS I will operationally define old fogies as thsoe who served as Majors and above prior to the change in terminology.
Jeez, John...Do I have to be a Major from the old times (although not yet one of the old fogies) ?
How 'bout being around an LTC during the same period...subjected to similar acts ? Does that count :cool:
I voted for CINC !
Quote:
Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
I hadn't voted for either because the one thing which has always been a concern of mine is titles. To often they may make sense to those who " belong" to a given sub group but in the context of of groups be they other military forces or civilians what does the title really tell them about who that person really is.Quote:
Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
Thus the simplistic answer of POC
Anyone either civilian or military can get the principle of Point of contact because whatever question you have about something there is one.
Any civilian or military understands the meaning behind the coordinator of something.
And whether it be a defensive, offensive, or productive everyone can agree that its an operation. Thus accepting that things don't change quite that simply I would say stick with what you know but if at all possible look towards finding something that makes at least nominal sense to anyone who might hear it.
Just my 1 1/2 on it:D
Out of deference to the classic old fogie, Stan, my operational definition now includes senior NCOs and Warrant Officers.:cool:
With apologies to you fogies
JohnT
Well, for my part, I'm still in the first half of my thirties, and I voted for CINC.:)