The Higher HQs as an Operational and Strategic Enabler

[Rob Thornton]

With the resignation of ADM Fallon as the CENTCOM CDR, and the MSM's discussion about friction between ADM Fallon and GEN Petraeus, I began to think about the historical parallels and how the roles the personalities involved in leadership matter. Just the activity of waging war provides a level of friction that makes coordinating activities and understanding the situation and conditions to a degree where each higher level of HQs can best support the activities of the one below it a real challenge. If the personalities involved don't understand each other for whatever reasons, then more friction is induced, and overcoming inertia toward the policy objective becomes not only a matter of defeating your enemy, but countering the efforts (be they at cross purposes for whatever reason(s)) of the higher HQs.

Lots of speculation last week about who would succeed ADM Fallon, and the positions that might have to be filled as a result. There was also some (albeit less) discussion about what skills and attributes they would need with regard to CENTCOM as a whole, given the other challenges in the CENTCOM AOR.

There has not been a great deal of discussion at all about the skills and attributes of a potential CENTCOM CDR with regard to better supporting the two wars in the CENTCOM AOR. Is there just an assumption that the GCC should focus on everything but Iraq and Afghanistan, given the many other challenges in the AOR? A higher HQs of the scale of a GCC can potentially bring a great deal of support to activities within its AOR, provided there is good lines of communication between HQs, and that there is shared understanding of the importance of the political objective, the agreement all around about what is acceptable in terms of an outcome, and what are the potential consequences for other then agreed upon outcomes with relation to broader regional and international objectives.

At least a few historical examples come to mind with regard to the challenges of developing common visions at the strategic and operational levels. The relationships between Lincoln, Stanton, Halleck, Grant, Meade and Sherman provides some good reading, and I'd offer that relationships between the Allies around 1944 offer some good insights as well. Not all of the examples or instances are positive, they often highlight where because of personality, misunderstanding, or political expediency HQs at different levels created more problems then they solved.

The recent events in CENTCOM offer a starting place to think about the questions, the fact that the consequences are immediate only adds to the importance of the discussion. However, with operations going on all over the world, and the question of authorities and responsibilities as they relate to capabilities and capacities, or bilateral and multi-lateral the question will probably come up again sooner rather then later.

How could a higher HQs such as a GCC with 2 theaters of operation in its AOR better support the HQs charged with achieving policy objectives as they relate to those two wars?

For the large number of historians and history / poli-sci buffs in the SWC, what are the parallels available to talk about?

Best, Rob