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
-
Siliconsciousness: The AI Competition: Public Policy Strategies: Part 1
Podcast
This episode comprises the first part of our special event, “The AI Competition: Public Policy Strategies”. The event, co-hosted by MIT Technology Review, brings together some...
By Dr. ED McGrady
-
How Drones in Ukraine Are Reshaping War
Samuel Bendett, a senior adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, joins The Cipher Brief to discuss the current situation of drones being used in Ukraine.Watc...
By Samuel Bendett
-
Awful but Lawful: China’s Australia Flotilla
Commentary
As such, this was not a demonstration of Chinese freedom of navigation. It was a show of force....
By Tom Shugart
-
Safe and Effective
Reports
The promise of artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomy to change the character of war inches closer to reality...
By Josh Wallin
