Now you’re talking brothers!
Quote:
One problem we actually had was the critical issues with Turkey, which falls under EUCOM. CENTCOM and EUCOM had different views on how to proceed. Who is the final arbitrator in the current system?
I also want to propose a future scenario where we have another Axis like coalition that we go to war with that has allies in multiple COCOM AORs (kind of like Al Qaeda, but I'm now talking about States now, much more serious threat). We need a global strategy to deal with it, who prepares it? Who leads it? What COCOM in the current structure is responsible? Of course that is just DOD, so who compels the other interagency members to row with us? We talk whole of government approach, but that doesn't happen much above the PRTs in combat zones.
Quote:
It will stop five and a half plus one geographically distantly located and focused Commands from doing it their way. As I said, the idea of decentralization was great. As you say, we do not have the FlagO quality to make it work.
Now you’re talking brothers! (But I still don’t like Melton’s article) I am now beginning to understanding where you want to go. I think giving national command responsibility to the chairman is too simplistic a solution and would result in a step back to undue service influence. Sorry, not trying to upset anyone …just being honest. Frankly, I was waiting for the old general staff argument, thanks for not bringing that up. BTW which one of you two is in charge of the other? JMM are you in charge of these two? IMHO you both need supervision but I need some help as I scroll past your replies, consequently, getting you mixed up with one another…j/k ;) …and another apology.
We have agreed that the national command authority needs a good, consistent, method, apparatus, leadership, etc., to generate timely and effective national strategy. We have also agreed that the current unified command structure has it flaws. (I also feel some but not all of those flaws could be corrected if the generals followed its procedures instead of looking for work arounds.) I feel the solution to the national strategy issue is good leadership (generalship) and yes the resolution will take years; why not start now. I cannot accept the too long argument when we have been in Afghanistan since 2001. I feel you agree there is a leadership issue and I understand we are trying to solve the strategy issue quicker with a command structure change.
What I am concerned about is, if we change it, we do not recreate the same past problems; specifically, what I have been calling service optimization. The chairman has a historical tendency to play to the service chiefs…after all, they live together in the Pentagon. Yes G-N cut the chairman’s command authority privates off but I feel you can’t sow them back on, nor should we want to …after all; they cauterized the wound with Teflon. It was part of the same process they used when they covered his butt with that non-stick substance.
Here is my structural solution. Take US Joint Forces Command (the old USLANTCOM) and give that command strategic operational authority over the COCOMs (the old regional CINCs or whatever they are called lately). Require that super COCOM general to not only generate adequate strategy but also coordinate the strategic seams between COCOMs (now that’s motivation for strategy). As part of this command structure change, require this headquarters to move out of Norfolk and into the old Navy Annex that overlooks the Pentagon (actually, I am not sure if it is still standing). This guy will need to be close to the president and the symbolism will not be lost on the existing Chairman nor the Pentagon Staff. If you want to see a great strategy, promises this guy a fifth star upon deliver and acceptance of the national strategy. Personally, I think a better solution here would be to subtract one star from every existing general except this new guy. (BTW, Ordierno ain’t the guy.) You still have some issues here… SOCOM is one (should be a force provider) and the command relations with the functional support CINCS another. Yes, you need to bring in the CIA, State Department, etc. but start that with the strategic planning process, if the opportunity is available. Those government agencies are huge rice bowls that will not break easily.
Bill, Ken and JMM..would really like to shake your hand over a beer someday..if your ever in Raleigh, NC…look me up
1 Attachment(s)
A picture instead of a 1000 words
For the present, we are just looking at the top of the C2 chart - correct ?
Attachment 1408
Re-arranging the military chairs does not solve the civilian side problem, which involves questions of substance as well as of process.
Possibly think Churchill, Pug Ismay, Sea, Air and Land, Foreign Affairs - note that Winston was very much into the political scene as well as the military. FDR, on the other hand, thought that, if we won the war, the politics of peace would take care of themselves. Wrong.
Who's in charge ?
Quote:
Willard: Who's in charge here?
Soldier: In charge? I don't know, man. I'm just doing what I'm told - I'm just a working girl.
But, better, Who's on first:
Quote:
Abbott: Well Costello, I’m going to New York with you. You know, Bucky Harris, the Yank’s manager gave me a job as coach for as long as you’re on the team.
Costello: Look Abbott, if you’re the coach, you must know all the players.
Abbott: Right, certainly do.
Costello: Well, I never met the guys, so you’ll have to tell me their names, and then I’ll know who’s playing on the team.
Abbott: Oh, I’ll tell you their names, but you know strange as it may seem, they give these ball players now a days, very peculiar names.
Costello: You mean funny names?
Abbott: Strange names, pet names. Like, Dizzy Dean, and…
Costello: His brother Daffy?
Abbott: Daffy Dean.
Costello: And their French cousin.
Abbott: French?
Costello: Goofe’.
Abbott: Goofe’ Dean, oh I see! Well let’s see, we have on the bags, we have Who’s on first, What’s on second, and I Don’t Know is on third.
Costello: That’s what I want to find out.
Abbott: I say, Who’s on first, What’s on second, and I Don’t Know’s on third.
Costello: Are you the manager?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: You going to be the coach too?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: And you don’t know the fellow’s names?
Abbott: Well I should.
Costello: Well then who is on first?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: I mean the fellow’s name.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy on first.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The first baseman.
Abbott: Who!
Costello: The guy playing first base.
Abbott: Who is on first.
Costello: I’m asking you who’s on first!
Abbott: That’s the man’s name. .... (and on and on)
Cheers and beers somewheres
Mike
Nah, Henery Lee III was a Colonel at the end of the Revolution.
He was made a MG (Miliitia) after helping take care of the Whiskey Rebellion and doing a good job at that. Then he resigned and went into politics He was a gifted amateur. One of the good guys even if he couldn't manage his money...
I was referring to the very professional Major General Charles Lee, he who got outfoxed -- and relieved -- by George Washington. Bad Generals abound here and elsewhere and they run all the way from the Revolution through Viet Nam and until today for us...