Filling a strategic-level void

Army Logistician, Nov-Dec, 2004 by Larry D. Harman

As the world's only "hyperpower," the United States seeks to maintain both the strategic high ground in world affairs and military superiority to advance and protect its interests. Our military is doing its part, along with the other instruments of national power (diplomatic, informational, and economic), by transforming on a massive scale to achieve a broad competitive advantage over any adversary. To many, structural changes, especially in the areas of force projection and sustainment, are necessary to achieving success. Although the word "structural" suggests permanence, or even rigidity, the term as used here refers to better defined relationships among an adaptive system's capabilities. In other words, better defined relationships lead to new levels of teamwork and jointness that achieve stunning results.

Essentially, these structural changes extend from the highest levels of the Department of Defense (DOD), including its links to interagency, industrial, and multinational partners, down to the tactical levels within the individual armed services, where violence is actually applied. More precisely, structural changes must be driven at all levels, vertically and horizontally, to achieve coherence and convergence of functions, policies, organizations, doctrine, networks, and processes. To accomplish this, the capabilities of DOD, the Defense industrial base, and the Defense Transportation System (DTS) require redefinition and realignment. This effort is very complex and disruptive, but it is mandatory if the essential capabilities codified in the futuristic joint operating, functional, and integrating concepts are to become realities.

A Strategic-Level Void

My focus in this article is intentionally limited to the strategic level, with the understanding that the operational and tactical levels of warfare are affected directly and indirectly by structural changes, or the lack thereof, at the strategic level. In this article, the U.S. military's strategic level includes the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (OCJCS); the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Joint Staff; the Defense agencies; the Defense industrial base; the DTS; strategic links to the National Security Council, the Department of Homeland Security, joint headquarters, and interagency, multinational, industrial, and academic partners; and the service-level headquarters.

A common framework already exists to develop and assess tactical-level and, to a lesser degree, operational-level structural changes. We know this framework as "DOTMLPF" (doctrine, organizations, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, and facilities). Unfortunately, at the strategic level, DOTMLPF development and assessment are difficult to perform. The reason is that there appears to be no disciplined process for capturing and assessing required structural changes at this high level and then making necessary changes in a timely manner. Given the "tyranny of time" and the "unforgiving high stakes" associated with national security, the U.S. military cannot allow strategic-level structural shortcomings to remain problems.

Today, the services, U.S. Joint Forces Command, and U.S. Special Operations Command are primarily responsible for DOTMLPF development. In fact, Title 10 of the U.S. Code assigns this set of responsibilities. This arrangement, however, is beginning to reveal alarming signs of inadequacy.

Due in large part to the absence of a disciplined, formal process to identify, assess, and make rapid changes at the strategic level, a significant structural void is emerging. This void is exacerbated by a distinctive blurring of strategic, operational, and tactical activities. Harmful DOTMLPF seams, gaps, and mismatches involving the regional combatant commands, Defense agencies, and services also must be addressed to achieve a more globally integrated, coherently joint, interdependent force. These problems can be found, for example, in mobilization processes, logistics, force protection, base closure and realignment, budget processes, and portions of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. More and more, the strategic level must be dynamically connected to joint, interagency, multinational, and industrial capabilities.

This strategic-level void, if left unchecked, will grow until a viable strategic-level solution is implemented. This begs the question: Is there a need to redefine and realign the U.S. Defense establishment's strategic-level structure so that it can collaborate more effectively, anticipate sooner, adapt better, and act faster in future global scenarios requiring joint, interagency, and multinational intervention? I think that such a rebalancing is long overdue. If this is true, then what is the "forcing function" to make it occur--not just once, but as needed in the future?

Forcing Change

Today, strategic-level structural changes occur in response to Administration edicts, legislation and subsequent appropriations, and DOD- and service-level policies and directives. Regrettably, unless confronted with an urgent crisis, such as the events of 11 September 2001 and the subsequent Global War on Terrorism, significant structural changes take years to implement, if done at all. Short of catastrophic events, strategic-level structural changes within our military establishment do not occur rapidly. Said more precisely, a perceived or actual "need" for strategic-level structural change must become critically urgent to senior decision makers, some of whom are either elected officials or Presidential appointees, to receive the proper attention. Conceivably, a major event covered by the media, such as coalition civilian contractors being taken hostage or killed in Iraq, can illuminate the need for a strategic-level change.