HLS832:

Lesson 2 - The Department of Defense in Context

Objectives (1 of 11)
Objectives

Introduction

The Department of Defense (DOD) has traditionally focused on conducting its missions outside the United States.  However, since 9/11 there has been a redefinition and renewed emphasis on domestic missions of homeland defense (HD) and defense support of civil authorities (DSCA).  Despite having the largest portion of the federal budget, DOD has responsibilities that outweigh its resources in terms of personnel and funding.  Accomplishing its domestic missions is further complicated by significant legal constraints, ranging from intelligence gathering, prosecution of law against U.S. citizens, and policies that restrict and define deployment (Supinski, NS 3181, n.d.). 
 
In this lesson we will examine the DOD in more detail beginning with Chapter 3 of our primary text. Here Neal Anderson (2014) tells us that an understanding and appreciation of DOD’s role in the homeland is essential for leaders within the national security apparatus. While Chapter 3 does place DSCA in a homeland defense and homeland security context, the focus of the chapter is on DSCA and how DOD works with stakeholders at all levels of government to accomplish its assigned missions in support of civil authorities.
 
You will also become acquainted with some of the roles, responsibilities, and functions of DOD and the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security (formerly the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs).  Additionally, you will become familiar with the basics of the Unified Command Plan. Please pay particular attention to the roles and missions of the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) (more on NORTHCOM later in the semester). Finally, we will look at how DOD builds the necessary coordination in an Interorganizational context, i.e., operations with other U.S. Government agencies; state, local, and tribal governments; intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. Please see…make…the connection between Neal Anderson’s chapter in To Support and Defend and Joint Publication 3-08,Interorganizational Coordination.
 

Lesson Objectives:

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

Please complete the assignments and readings outlined on the course schedule for this week.

The U.S. Military in the Homeland: An Indispensable Partner in the Emergency Response Enterprise (2 of 11)
The U.S. Military in the Homeland: An Indispensable Partner in the Emergency Response Enterprise

The U.S. Military in the Homeland: An Indispensable Partner in the Emergency Response Enterprise

 
This chapter provides current and future homeland security leaders a practical understanding of DOD’s roles, responsibilities, and capabilities in providing DSCA. As the homeland security enterprise evolves and matures, so too will DOD continue to refine its policies, organizations, doctrine, and capabilities to best perform its domestic missions. Anderson’s intent here is not to make the reader an expert in HD and DSCA, but rather to assist in making all of us critical thinkers and critical questioners, helping us understand the importance of developing essential relationships before the need arises, and being aware of the resources DOD can contribute to civilian agencies (Anderson, 2014).
Joint Publication (3 of 11)
Joint Publication

Joint Publication

 
Joint Publication 3-08, Interorganizational Cooperation (2016), provides doctrine for the coordination of military operations with:
It sets forth doctrine to govern the activities and performance of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations and provides the doctrinal basis for interagency coordination and for U.S. military involvement in multinational operations (JT Pub 3-08, 2016).
 
The Department of Defense (DOD) conducts interorganizational coordination across a range of operations, with each type of operation involving different stakeholders and organizational structures. This is especially evident for domestic (DSCA) and foreign (HD or disaster relief) operations. These two mission sets are governed by very different legal and policy authorities. Interorganizational coordination aids in accomplishing these missions by enabling participants to do one or more of the following: facilitate unity of effort; achieve common objectives; and provide common understanding.  A commitment to interorganizational coordination and collaboration will help to achieve desired end states by facilitating cooperation in areas of common interest and avoiding unintended negative consequences when working in the same environment as others (JT Pub 3-08, 2016).
Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major Components (4 of 11)
Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major Components

Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major Components

 
All functions of the Department of Defense (DOD) are performed under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense.  DOD Directive 5100.01, Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major Components, establishes the roles and functions of DOD and its major Components, defined below, supporting the core mission areas of the Armed Forces, which are “broad DOD military operations and activities required to achieve the strategic objectives of the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy (NDS), and National Military Strategy (NMS)” (DODD 5100.01, 2010, p.1).  We will read selected portions of the NDS and NMS later in the course. 
 
This Directive applies to DOD Components (see the DOD Organizational Chart below), which include: the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); the Military Departments (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force), the Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and the Joint Staff;  the Combatant Commands (more on these later in the lesson); the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense (IG DOD); the Defense Agencies(e.g., Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, Defense Threat Reduction Agency), the DOD Field Activities (e.g., Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office, TRICARE Management Activity), and all other organizational entities within DOD.  See the Defense Almanac for additional information about DOD Components.
 
DOD shall maintain and use the Armed Forces to: “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ensure, by timely and effective military action, the security of the United States, its possessions, and areas vital to its interest; and uphold and advance the national policies and interests of the United States” (DODD 5100.01, 2010, p. 2).  
Organization of the Department of Defense (5 of 11)
Organization of the Department of Defense

Organization of the Department of Defense (DoD)

DOD Organizational Structure Infographic (source)
 
DOD Directive (6 of 11)
DOD Directive

DOD Directive

 
DOD Directive 5111.13, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs (ASD(HD&ASA)) (2009), establishes the position, responsibilities, and authorities of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas’ Security Affairs (ASD(HD&ASA)).*
 
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security ASD(HD&GS), serves as the principal civilian advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD(P)) on homeland defense activities (HD), Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA), and Western Hemisphere security matters.
 
The ASD(HD&GS) shall provide overall supervision of HD activities of DOD which include, but are not limited to: the Defense Critical Infrastructure Program (DCIP); domestic antiterrorism; the Defense Continuity Program; other homeland defense-related activities; and alignment of homeland defense policies and programs with DOD policies for counterterrorism and counternarcotics.

 
*Note: the title of this position has changed to the “Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security.” 
 

Thomas Atkin

Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security

Tom Atkin is the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security. He is responsible for advising the Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy on policy, strategy, and implementation guidance across a diverse portfolio of national and global security issues. These issues include countering weapons of mass destruction, cyber operations, homeland defense activities, antiterrorism, continuity of government and mission assurance, defense support to civil authorities and space-related matters.


Previously, from November 2014 to August 2015, Mr. Atkin served as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and Global Security. Prior to his appointment in 2014, Mr. Atkin was a Director for Raytheon U.S. Business Development for Homeland Security. In this capacity he was responsible for linking technological, engineering and service solutions to maritime, border, public safety and other security-related requirements in the homeland security market. Mr. Atkin also served as the Managing Principal of The Atkin Group, a management consulting firm that provided broad strategic and operational counsel on intelligence, maritime security, crisis management, incident response, and interagency coordination to senior government and corporate officials.


Mr. Atkin retired from the Coast Guard as a Rear Admiral (Upper Half) in June 2012 after more than 30 years of service in various operational and strategic roles. He has significant experience across the whole of government and has served in support of the White House National Security Staff, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Navy. His senior leadership positions included serving as Assistant Commandant for Intelligence and Criminal Investigations; acting Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship; Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Transborder Security on the White House National Security Staff; Commander of the Coast Guard Deployable Operations Group; Deputy Principal Federal Official to the FEMA Gulf Coast Joint Field Office; and Chief of Staff to the Principal Federal Official for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. His previous Pentagon assignments were Chief, Maritime Homeland Security and Defense Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Homeland Defense; and Chief, Counter-Terrorism Branch, Chief of Naval Operations (Deep Blue).


He is a graduate from the United States Coast Guard Academy with a Bachelor of Science in Mathematical Sciences, and holds a Master of Science in Management Science from the University of Miami.

(Note: Mr. Atkin is Acting as of Sept. 2015).

CRS Report (7 of 11)
CRS Report

CRS Report

 
CRS Report, The Unified Command Plan and Combatant Commands: Background and Issues for Congress (Feickert, 2013), provides brief information on the history, mission, and operational considerations, as well as a brief discussion of current issues associated for each of the Combatant Commands (COCOMs) identified in the Unified Command Plan (UCP).  For some of you, this may be your first exposure to UCP and the concept of unified command.  The UCP is a classified document prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), signed by the President, and reviewed and updated, as necessary, every two years.  It assigns missions; planning, training, and operational responsibilities; and geographic areas of responsibilities to the COCOMs (CRS Report, 2013).
 
The origins of the UCP and COCOMs date back to World War II.  After the war, U.S. leaders, taking advantage of the lessons learned in both the Pacific and European theaters of operation, initiated a series of legislative changes that resulted in the current UCP process and COCOM construct.  The UCP and COCOMs are covered under Title 10, USC (CRS Report, 2013).  That being said, The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-433, October 1, 1986) had a major impact on how the Joint Staff and the COCOMs are organized today.  The law placed “clear responsibility on the commanders of the unified and specified [functional] combatant commands for the accomplishment of missions assigned to those commands…” (P.L. 99-433) and to improve the ability of U.S. Armed Forces to conduct joint (inter-service) and combined (inter-allied) operations; the terms “joint” and “combined” are still used today.  The law greatly strengthened the roles and responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and designated him as the principal military adviser to the President and the Secretary of Defense.  It also increased the command authority and responsibilities of the unified combatant commands, as now seen in the UCP.  Additionally, the Act required Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) for officers and that certain officers serve in joint duty assignments before they could be promoted to flag or general officer rank.
 
The UCP provides operational instructions and command and control authorities to the Armed Forces and has a significant impact on how they are organized, trained, and resourced—areas over which Congress has constitutional authority.  Functional COCOMs operate world-wide across geographic boundaries and provide unique capabilities to geographic combatant commands and the Services while Geographic COCOMs operate in clearly delineated areas of operation and have a distinctive regional military focus.  There are currently nine COCOMs and they are discussed in the report (CRS Report, 2013).  For our purposes, the focus is on some background on the UCP and the COCOM construct and the U.S. Northern Command.

 

JOH - Staffing Guide (8 of 11)
JOH - Staffing Guide

JOH - Staffing and Action Guide

 
The Unified Command Plan (UCP), which is approved by the President, establishes missions, responsibilities, and force structure of the unified combatant commanders; delineates the general geographical Area of Responsibility (AOR) for the Geographic Combatant Commanders (GCC); and specifies functional responsibilities for Functional Combatant Commanders (FCC).  The UCP and the National Security Strategy (NSS) are components of U.S. Grand Strategy (JOH, 2011). 
Insights and Best Practices Focus Paper: Interorganizational Coordination (9 of 11)
Insights and Best Practices Focus Paper: Interorganizational Coordination

Insights and Best Practices Focus Paper:  Interorganizational Coordination

The Joint Staff, J-7 supports the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commanders, and the warfighter by publishing various focus papers.  This one, Interorganizational Coordination (Joint Staff, J-7, 2013) complements your reading of Joint Publication 3-08, Interorganizational Cooperation (Joint Staff, J-3, 2016).  JP 3-08 was recently revised from the previous version (Interorganizational Coordination During Joint Operations, 2011).  Don’t be too concerned that the J-7 Focus Paper pre-dates the revision of JP 3-08.  The foundational concepts are still there and are mutually supporting.  You will even see references to the 2011 version of JP 3-08 in the J-7 Focus Paper.

All the elements of national power—diplomatic, informational, military, and economic (DIME)—significantly affect U.S. national security in the extremely complex global environment.  The United States Government (USG) has observed numerous best practices in how operational commanders and our interorganizational partners work together to achieve objectives.  An atmosphere of inclusiveness must be established and is often done so in collaboration with international organizations, governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and the private sector in a whole of government approach.  This enables and facilitates bringing together all elements of national and international power to achieve strategic objectives.  With that said, effective relationships and coordination with lead agencies (within the USG or otherwise) are key to gaining situational awareness of external stakeholders who can have a positive impact on the mission (Joint Staff, J-7, 2013, p. 1).

There are, of course, challenges associated with unified action and interorganizational coordination.  The active participants and other stakeholders recognize that there will not be unqualified unity of command with one single authority nor clearly defined roles and responsibilities.  They acknowledge that complete unity of effort is often difficult.  Also, interorganizational partners do not have the funding, number of personnel, or the capacity of the U.S. military.  Further, their perspectives on a situation, possible solutions, and any agendas can vary widely.  Also, there is the very real possibility of encountering friction when working together with different organizational cultures.  Interorganizational coordination is just not as easy as one would like it to be (Joint Staff, J-7, 2013, p. 1).  

 

Summary (10 of 11)
Summary

Summary

 
At the end of this lesson you should be able to:
Assignments (11 of 11)
Assignments

Assignments

Discussion Forum:

Top of page