Is American Imperialism a Result of Goldwater Nichols? - Foresman

One of my faults is I am a thinker; that I often question the status quo, the why things are.  One of my favorite web sites to visit is Tom Dispatch.  Many in the military would not read Tom Dispatch as it routinely questions the very underpinnings of how things are done in the United States in particular in the National Security arena.

Several weeks ago, Tom Dispatch published an extended article on the shadow war in Africa.  In part it questioned why the United States military has divided the world into six fiefdoms or Combatant Commands.  This week there is an extended debate between a spokesman; for United States Africa Command and Tom Dispatch.  I commend the original and the letter to editor and the response to the letter to the editor, as they are enlightening.

I have wondered for quite a while, why the United States requires six regional military commands.  The short answer is they are a continuation of our division of the world during World War II into Theaters of War.  In fact they are often referred to as Theaters by today’s military.  But that is not the sole reason.  The United States being the dominate Western partner in our Cold War against global communism required the ability to establish priorities for the employment of our military.  Lastly, today’s Combatant Commands and the defined power of the Commander[1], was an outgrowth of the debacles that were Grenada and Lebanon in the early 80’s.  In the case of Grenada it was each service Chief adding their forces to the mix resulting in a Cluster Firetruck.  In the case of Lebanon it was the failure of United State European Command to accept responsibility of the bombing in Beirut that left countless Marines dead.  As a result in the Goldwater-Nichols Act the power of the services over operational matters was severely constrained and the Combatant Commanders were ultimately responsible for determining which military capabilities were required for a specific operation.

While Senator Goldwater and Representative Nichols should be commended for their singular pursuit of Operational efficiency within the Department of Defense, there has been an unintended consequence to this action. 

First and foremost the Combatant Commanders have become de Facto Pro Counsels for their respective Regional Commands.  In many cases they are the representatives of the United States Government who have the most exposure in their particular Theater.  As such Military Power has become the dominat element of the United States National Power (Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic.)

Second, the Department of Defense regional division of the world differs from the Department of State regional division of the world.  Thus the Department of State Regional Director for Near East must coordinate diplomatic activities in two Combatant Commanders Areas of Responsibility (Africa Command and Central Command).  More importantly, while attempted with Africa Command, there is generally no high ranking member of the Foreign Service within the Headquarters of the Regional Combatant Commands.  The only presence in the Regional Combatant Commands is the Political Advisor who is a Senior Member of the Foreign Service but from my experience has little influence inside the State Department.

Third, because of the immense power of the Combatant Commanders and the fact that the Chain of Command as specified in 10 USC § 162 runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the Combatant Commander, the Combatant Commander has direct access to the Commander-in-Chief and as such the Executive is more likely to contemplate Military Action first and foremost.

The question that should be debated not only by the military but also by an informed citizenry is the organization of the Regional Combatant Commands making the United States imperialistic in the execution of its foreign policy? 

I have believed for a long time that there is a need for a new National Security Act for the 21^st Century.[2]  Among the provision I would like to see is the common alignment of Regions across the entire federal government.  While there may be arguments for different divisions it seems that a whole government approach would benefit from all the players reading off the same script.  I think it also time to consider rather than having the Department of Defense Combatant Commanders being the lead that perhaps it is time of the Department of State to take the lead.

The goal of whatever any National Security Act ought to be strengthening the Security of our nation while at the same time assuring the other nations of the world that we are not in fact militaristic imperialists.  Unfortunately given the deep divisions in Washington I fear that neither party will take the lead in advocating for shaping our National Security Structure for the realities of the 21^st Century.  Hank Foresman

---

[1] There are six Regional Combatant Commands: United States Northern Command, Southern Command, European Command, Central Command, Africa Command, and Pacific Command and three functional Combatant Commands: United States Special Operations Command, Transportation Command, Strategic Command.  In addition there are two Sub-unified Commands, United States Forces Korea under the Combatant Command Authority (COCOM) of Pacific Command, and Cyber Command under the COCOM of Strategic Command.  See map http://www.defense.gov/news/UCP_2011_Map4.pdf

[2] The last major reorganization of the Department of Defense was the Goldwater-Nichols Act in 1986; it was a major reorganization of the Department of Defense but hardly the radical reorganization of the National Security Act of 1948; which not only created the Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, but also created the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council.

 

Comments

[Lars]

Very interesting but will a Congress that is only able to name post offices capable of enacting such a far reaching policy, regardless of its merits?

I am sure there will be institutional resistance from the military too.

[VietnamVet]

Colonel,

I read the original article on Mother Jones web site:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/pentagon-new-generation-military-bases-tom-dispatch

What struck me was the term “lily pads” for the “small, secretive, inaccessible facilities with limited numbers of troops, spartan amenities, and prepositioned weaponry and supplies”. If these bases are in sub-Saharan Muslim lands, they bring to mind the French Foreign Legion Forts from 1930 films. Native true believers will automatically consider these forts as foreign Christian infestations to eradicate. “Hell-Holes” might be another term used by the troops.

The Obama Administration has wholeheartedly embraced Unconventional Warfare (UW). Colonel, you are testimony that UW worked in Central America. Supplying “Lily Pads” and building Drones make contractors and DOD happy and stimulate the economy. But, I remain unconvinced that UW will work on the other side of the world in the midst of a thousand year old religious war.

Islamic Taureg rebels with an influx of battle-hardened fighters from Libya have seized Northern Mali. Strategically there are only two choices in Africa “Kill them all and let Allah sort them out” or Containment; the separation and establishment of a border between the Arab and African tribes from the Atlantic to Indian Oceans. The third option is for Americans just not to give a damn.

[ex-PFC Chuck]

One of my faults is I am a thinker; that I often question the status quo, the why things are.

This is no doubt why you retired as a colonel. And I mean this as the precise opposite of an insult.

[Leanderthal]

Tom Engelhardt should be read by all thinkers. His blog, TomDispatch.com, is an important contribution to exposing the dangerous reality of US imperialism around the globe.

Imperial Rome wasn't built in a day and didn't decline in a day.

What we are bequeathing to succeeding generations is at least troubling.

Leanderthal
INTJ

[Sertorius]

…the Combatant Commander has direct access to the Commander-in-Chief and as such the Executive is more likely to contemplate Military Action first and foremost.
I have a couple of problems with this statement.
First, while it's true that the COCOM commanders are two degrees of separation from the CINC, Ambassadors are direct representatives of the President. In practice most of them have to go through State, just like the COCOMs have to go through the JCS and/or the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Of course there are always special cases like Big Political Donors who become Ambassadors. Some of them have little difficulty getting the direct line to the President.
Second, and more importantly, even if one assumes greater influence by the COCOM, it is not safe to assume that their first recommendation is necessarily a military one. The best of the COCOMs are fully invested in the totality of the DIME, and therefore are happy to recommend other than military solutions. However, they can only control the military contribution and must rely on other Agencies to resource diplomatic, economic and informational plans. Also, until C17s and hospital ships are assigned to State or USAID, they will still have to come to DOD to move or build things without a competitively bid contract.
Having said all that, I agree with much of the article. The entire Federal government should divvy up the world the same way in the interests of efficiency. Further, having a regional Ambassador who has authority over significant resources to effect policy would be a happy thing.

[The Twisted Genius]

I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestions. The combatant commanders are now the most powerful feudal lords in our foreign policy/national security sphere(s). This is not healthy for a nation that wants (I assume) to be a peaceful, prosperous nation. The State Department should assume the lead, as long as they have the right people, resources and regulatory power to do so. If the COCOM is to assume temporary primacy, it should require a Congressional declaration of war or conflict or emergency or whatever you want to call it. But it should be a deliberate act.

Obviously the bureaucratic resistance to such a change would be immense. I don't think it could even be attempted until our second civil war reaches some kind of conclusion. I feel the true believers on both the republican/conservative and the democratic/liberal sides are engaged in a civil war just as profound as the WBS. Their allegience to their respective philosophies is stronger than their allegiance to the nation as a whole. Any reform of the national security structure or any other major aspect of our public life will be impossible until this philosophic civil war is concluded.

[Tyler]

Is State the right department to lead things right now though? It seems like they're overrun by the neocon/neolibs/globalists and believe that inside every third world tribalist is a true believer in democracy. It will only take the right combination of bombing and foreign aid to bring that convert to the forefront, if you listen to them.

From where I'm sitting it seems like elements in the military and the intelligence services are the grown ups who realise what is going on in the world around us. But my experience is obviously limited compared to some of the luminaries who post here and have traveled in the higher ranks domestically and globally among the various services.

[The Twisted Genius]

Tyler,

Is the State Department ready to assume leadership of our national security structure? It's certainly not as it's currently structured and manned. I think it would take several years of buildup, manning and training. It would probably take nearly as long to restructure and retrain the DoD before it's ready to assume a more subordinate role. It would be a big cultural change for both departments. As far as being overrun by neocon/neolibs/globalists, I doubt the career foreign service officer corps is any worse than the military officer corps. The vast majority of the wackos are political appointments and gift ambassadorships to political fundraisers. That whole system would have to stop. Could you imagine brigade commands being given to political hacks and fund raisers... even in a peacetime Army?

[Tyler]

You're right of course, it would be a massive culture shift in both departments, which I don't see happening anything soon. To be honest, the domestic front isn't much better either. It seems the only 'law enforcement' the federal level is interested in consists of civil rights, copyright violations, child porn, and counterterror. Otherwise it is all 'diversity' training and 'run away and hide' internet 'virtual' courses.

[YT]

RE: "One of my faults is I am a thinker; that I often question the status quo, the why things are."

Col. sir,

At the very least, you Gwailoh have the luxury of indulging in such thoughts & acting on them

In the Gawdfersaken region™ where I'm at, most folks who even attempt to absquatulate about the "gawd****-way-things-are", often in the words of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, "are at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored."

Such is the nature of things my side-of-the-hemisphere.

Period.

[Medicine Man]

Brigade Commands being given to political hacks? My first thought was that an element of this was present in how the British elevated their officers. Maybe not fair to them but I thought it nonetheless.