HASC Announces Roles and Missions Panel

[SWJED]

HASC Announces Roles and Missions Panel

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) and Ranking Member Duncan Hunter (R-CA) announced the creation of a committee panel to examine the roles and missions of the military services. The following members have been named to serve on the Roles and Missions Panel:

Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN), Chairman
Congressman Rick Larsen (D-WA)
Congresswoman Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY)
Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA)

Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-GA), Ranking Member
Congressman Geoff Davis (R-KY)
Congressman Michael Conaway (R-TX)

“The basic structure of the Department of Defense and the division of labor between the military services has not dramatically changed since the late 1940s. Ensuring that the military services are working on the appropriate roles and missions is key to our national security and Congress has an important role to play in this effort. Under the able leadership of Chairman Jim Cooper and Ranking Member Phil Gingrey, we will evaluate and identify options in order to maintain the fighting force our nation needs to protect the American people,” said Chairman Skelton.

“We look forward to working with our colleagues on this important issue. The assignment of roles and missions to the Armed Services has always been a critical element to America’s security. I’d like to thank Rep. Gingrey, Rep. Conaway, Rep. Davis and all of the other members of the panel for agreeing to undertake this important endeavor,” said Ranking Member Hunter.

“The military finds itself facing unpredictable threats in a dangerous new world. Our military services have responded bravely to these challenges and are completing missions they never anticipated. This panel will explore the changing missions of the military services, identify gaps in our capabilities, and propose options that ensure the United States can defend itself against every threat to national security. I look forward to beginning this important work with my colleagues,” said Congressman Cooper.

“This panel will allow us the opportunity to study an issue vital to our nation’s Armed Forces. I am honored to serve as Ranking Member of the panel, and look forward to working together with Chairman Cooper and other panel Members on this important undertaking,” said Congressman Gingrey.

[kit]

Isn't that an example of Congressional micro-managing of DOD? It seems to me that if the services need to be transformed (which they do, but not along Rumsfeld's lines) it ought to come from the services, not be dictated to them.

[SteveMetz]

Isn't that an example of Congressional micro-managing of DOD? It seems to me that if the services need to be transformed (which they do, but not along Rumsfeld's lines) it ought to come from the services, not be dictated to them.

DoD and the Services have proven incapable of deep change without outside intervention. It took the Goldwater-Nichols DoD Reform Act of 1986 to get jointness taken seriously. I think this is well within Congress' obligation to exercise oversight.

[Rob Thornton]

I'd also add that this type of oversight helps civilian leadership understand how to employ the military toward policy ends. I hope this will facilitate some very honest and frank discussions toward that.

As Steve points out and recent public arguments reinforce, service culture can be parochial and myopic. Publicly defining roles and missions is a good step in helping us posture for our new security challenges.

Best regards, Rob

[kit]

I'd also add that this type of oversight helps civilian leadership understand how to employ the military toward policy ends. I hope this will facilitate some very honest and frank discussions toward that.

As Steve points out and recent public arguments reinforce, service culture can be parochial and myopic. Publicly defining roles and missions is a good step in helping us posture for our new security challenges.

Best regards, Rob

You're right, but just changing the structure without changing the military culture would only result in "old" officers leading the "new" military. Not exactly an idea which offers comfort, is it?

However, I suppose we have to start somewhere.

[Steve Blair]

You're right, but just changing the structure without changing the military culture would only result in "old" officers leading the "new" military. Not exactly an idea which offers comfort, is it?

However, I suppose we have to start somewhere.

Such structure changes, however, often prompt the "old" officers to retire. It also creates openings for the "new" officers to move up. Frankly, I think an overhaul of the personnel system (as Vandegriff and others have proposed) should accompany any major roles and missions overhaul.

[SteveMetz]

You're right, but just changing the structure without changing the military culture would only result in "old" officers leading the "new" military. Not exactly an idea which offers comfort, is it?

However, I suppose we have to start somewhere.

There are ways to change the culture through legislation. The most effective elements of Goldwater Nichols were the requirements that the Services promote officers who had had joint assignments at least as the same rate as those who had not, and requiring a joint assignment for promotion to flag rank. Immediately, the Services started sending their stars to joint assignments instead of their bottom feeders.