oversight

U.S. Atlantic Command: Challenging Role in the Evolution of Joint Military Capabilities

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-02-17.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                  United States General Accounting Office

GAO               Report to Congressional Committees




February 1999
                  U.S. ATLANTIC
                  COMMAND
                  Challenging Role in the
                  Evolution of Joint
                  Military Capabilities




GAO/NSIAD-99-39
      United States
GAO   General Accounting Office
      Washington, D.C. 20548

      National Security and
      International Affairs Division

      B-278198

      February 17, 1999

      Congressional Committees

      In 1993, the U.S. Atlantic Command was assigned the mission to maximize America’s military
      capability through joint training, force integration, and deployment of ready U.S.-based forces
      to support the geographic commands’, its own, and domestic requirements. This report
      discusses the Atlantic Command’s actions to establish itself as the joint force trainer, provider,
      and integrator of most continental U.S.-based forces; views on the value of the Command’s
      contributions to joint military capabilities; and the recent expansion of the Command’s
      responsibilities and the possible effects on the Command. We conducted this review under our
      basic legislative responsibilities and are addressing this report to the committees of jurisdiction
      because we believe it will useful to your committees when they discuss joint operations with
      the Department of Defense. This report contains recommendations that the Secretary of
      Defense direct the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command to adopt performance
      goals and measures and that the Secretary fully incorporate the Command’s functional roles,
      authorities, and responsibilities in appropriate Department of Defense directives and
      publications.

      We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint
      Chiefs of Staff, and the Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command. Copies will also be made
      available to others on request.

      If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact Marvin Casterline,
      Assistant Director, on (202) 512-9076. Major contributors to this report are listed in
      appendix VIII.




      Henry L. Hinton, Jr.
      Assistant Comptroller General
B-278198

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable John W. Warner
Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman
The Honorable David K. Inouye
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd Spence
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

The Honorable Jerry Lewis
Chairman
The Honorable John P. Murtha
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives




                    Page 2         GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
B-278198




           Page 3   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Executive Summary


             As the twenty-first century approaches, the United States faces the critical
Purpose      challenge of ensuring that its military forces can meet a full range of
             demands. Joint operations are key to meeting this challenge, and the U.S.
             Atlantic Command (USACOM) was designed to play a major role in
             advancing the evolution of joint military capabilities. In response to
             congressional interest in Department of Defense (DOD) efforts to improve
             joint operations, GAO determined (1) USACOM’s actions to establish itself as
             the joint force trainer, provider, and integrator of most continental
             U.S.-based forces; (2) views on the value of the Command’s contributions
             to joint military capabilities; and (3) recent expansion of the Command’s
             responsibilities and its possible effects on the Command.


             Until 1993, the lack of a joint headquarters to oversee the forces of the
Background   four services based in the continental United States was long considered a
             problem that the Joint Chiefs of Staff tried twice to fix. The concept of a
             joint headquarters for U.S.-based forces resurfaced again at the end of the
             Cold War. In making a recommendation in 1993 to the Secretary of
             Defense for such a joint headquarters, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
             Staff (1989-93), General Colin Powell, said that such a command would
             bring greater focus to joint training and operations among continental
             U.S.-based forces. U.S.-based forces, he said, needed to be trained to
             operate jointly as a way of life. Acting on the Chairman’s recommendation,
             the Secretary of Defense assigned USACOM this responsibility in
             October 1993. Later, revisions to the Unified Command Plan1 provided
             broad guidance on USACOM’s new functional roles, and an implementation
             plan, approved by the Secretary of Defense, provided USACOM the basic
             concept of its mission, responsibilities, and forces.

             One of USACOM’s principal missions is to maximize America’s military
             capability through joint training, force integration, and deployment of
             ready U.S.-based forces to support geographic commands’, its own, and
             domestic requirements. Since USACOM was established, its mission has
             received increased emphasis with the issuance of Joint Vision 2010—the
             military’s long-range strategic vision—in July 1996. Joint Vision 2010
             serves as a conceptual template for how the armed forces expect to
             channel resources to achieve new levels of effectiveness in joint
             warfighting.



             1
              The plan sets forth basic guidance to all unified commanders; establishes their missions,
             responsibilities, and force structure; delineates the general geographic area of responsibility for
             geographic commanders; and specifies functional responsibilities for functional commanders.



             Page 4                                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                   Executive Summary




                   To accomplish its mission and conduct operations in its geographic area of
                   responsibility, USACOM has four service component commands: the Navy’s
                   U.S. Atlantic Fleet, the Army’s U.S. Forces Command, the Air Force’s Air
                   Combat Command, and the Marine Corps’ Marine Forces Atlantic.
                   Approximately 1.4 million armed forces personnel—or about 80 percent of
                   the active and reserve forces based in the continental United States—are
                   assigned to these component commands. As of fiscal year 1998, USACOM’s
                   headquarters included about 1,600 civilian and military personnel, and the
                   Command had an operations and maintenance budget of about
                   $100 million that was funded through the Department of the Navy budget.
                   The Command’s size increased significantly in October 1998, when five
                   additional DOD activities were transferred to USACOM.

                   The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act,
                   P.L. 103-62) requires federal agencies to clearly define their missions, set
                   goals, link activities and resources to goals, prepare annual performance
                   plans, measure performance, and report on their accomplishments. The
                   Senate and House Reports on the Results Act legislation anticipated that
                   the act’s principles would be institutionalized and practiced at all
                   organizational levels of the federal government. USACOM has developed a
                   new strategic planning system to enhance the management of its major
                   areas of focus, which include joint force training, providing, and
                   integrating.


                   USACOM  has advanced joint training by developing a state-of-the-art joint
Results in Brief   task force commander training program and simulation training center.
                   The Command has also progressed in developing other elements of joint
                   training, though not at the same level of maturity or intensity. However,
                   USACOM has had to make substantive changes in its approach to providing
                   and integrating joint forces. Its initial approach was to develop ready force
                   packages tailored to meet the geographic commands’ spectrum of
                   missions. This was rebuffed by the military services and the geographic
                   commands, which did not want or value USACOM’s proactive role and by the
                   Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1993-97), who did not see the utility
                   of such force packages. By late 1995, USACOM reverted to implementing a
                   force-providing process that provides the Command with a much more
                   limited role and ability to affect decisions and change. The Command’s
                   force integrator role was separated from force providing and also
                   redirected. The emphasis is now on improving the interoperability2 of

                   2
                    The ability of systems, units, or forces to provide services to and accept services from other systems,
                   units, or forces to enable them to operate effectively together.



                   Page 5                                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Executive Summary




existing systems, developing and evaluating advanced technologies in
support of joint operations, and advancing the development of joint
doctrine.

The establishment of performance goals and measures would help USACOM
assess and report on the results of its efforts to improve joint military
capabilities. Although it could be difficult to develop such goals and
measures and to assess the Command’s performance, such assessments
could help USACOM better determine what it needs to do to enhance its
performance. The Congress anticipated that Results Act principles, such
as setting performance goals and measuring performance, would be
institutionalized at all organizational levels in federal agencies. The
Command’s recently instituted strategic planning system does not include
performance measures that can be used to evaluate its impact on the
military capabilities of U.S. forces.

Views of the value of USACOM’s contributions varied widely within DOD. The
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, and USACOM believed the
Command was providing an important focus to the advancement of joint
operations. The Commander in Chief of USACOM saw the Command’s most
important contributions as having been in joint training and, most
recently, force integration. The views of the geographic commands were
generally more reserved, with some benefiting more than others from
USACOM’s efforts. While these commands reported that USACOM had been a
responsive and dependable provider of trained forces, they also reported
that they had received little direct benefit from USACOM’s efforts in training
and integration.

The Secretary of Defense recently expanded USACOM’s charter. The
Command’s new authorities are likely to increase its role and capabilities
to provide training and joint warfighting support and enhance its ability to
influence decisions within the Department. USACOM’s efforts to effect
change can be expected to continue to encounter opposition, particularly
from the military departments. The parochial or service-oriented priorities
of the military services can often conflict with USACOM’s joint priorities.

Although USACOM’s roles are expanding and the number of functions and
DOD organizational elements the Command has relationships with is
significant, its roles and responsibilities are still largely not spelled out in
key DOD policy and guidance, including joint doctrine, guidance, and other
publications. Making such change to policy and guidance documents




Page 6                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                           Executive Summary




                           would help provide a common understanding of USACOM’s roles and
                           responsibilities.



Principal Findings

Progress and Redirection   USACOM’s  actions to enhance joint training have generally been consistent
in Executing Functional    with those envisioned when the Command was established. Its efforts
Roles                      have focused on developing a training program for joint task force
                           commanders and staff. This program has evolved into a three-phased
                           program that includes academics, planning drills, and simulated joint
                           exercises that emphasize command and control of forces in an array of
                           worldwide situations ranging from peacetime operations to major
                           conflicts. While not at the same level of maturity or intensity, the
                           Command has recently given more attention to developing service
                           interoperability training exercises and providing mobile training teams to
                           assist geographic commands in the design and evaluation of joint training.

                           USACOM  has redirected the approach and scope of its joint force provider
                           and integrator roles. “Adaptive joint force packaging” was to be the
                           foundation for implementing these roles. Under this concept, USACOM was
                           to assemble joint force packages tailored to respond to the requirements
                           of supported geographic commands from the most capable and ready
                           forces available. These force packages—trained and organized around
                           capabilities to meet specific mission requirements—were to be proposed
                           to the supported commands and refined as necessary. The concept offered
                           the opportunity to explore and refine options for providing capabilities
                           tailored to mission requirements. USACOM largely abandoned this concept
                           in 1995, primarily because of resistance from other geographic commands
                           who did not want or value a significant role for USACOM in determining how
                           to meet mission requirements. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
                           supported the position of the geographic commands.

                           In providing forces to supported commands, USACOM has become more
                           reactive than proactive. It has shifted from developing
                           products—preplanned joint groupings of forces to conduct specific
                           potential future missions—to overseeing a process that identifies, selects,
                           trains, and deploys forces, on an ad hoc basis, to meet the near-term
                           capability requirements of the geographic commands. A major
                           responsibility of the Command is to work with its service components and




                           Page 7                                   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                            Executive Summary




                            the geographic commands to resolve operating and personnel tempo
                            issues related to assets that are in high demand. This involves analyzing
                            tempo data across its service components and developing alternatives for
                            meeting geographic commands’ needs within tempo guidelines. The assets
                            include specialized aircraft, such as surveillance and reconnaissance and
                            electronic warfare planes; other combat assets, such as the Patriot Missile
                            System; and less prominent support assets, such as military police and dog
                            teams.

                            In its joint force integrator role, USACOM has redefined its efforts as
                            providing a process to improve interoperability and enhance joint force
                            capabilities through a blending of technology, systems, and doctrine. This
                            includes sponsoring a large number of technology demonstration projects
                            that have a multiservice emphasis to enhance joint operational
                            capabilities, searching for solutions to joint interoperability problems
                            among advanced battle systems, and responding to joint doctrinal issues
                            evolving from training, operations, and other sources.


Value of USACOM’s           USACOM  has conducted several self-assessments of its performance. These
Contributions to Joint      have largely been evaluations of progress toward accomplishing tasks
Military Capabilities Not   associated with its functional roles and other areas of major focus—they
                            provide little insight into the Command’s contributions to improved joint
Assessed, and Views Vary    military capabilities. The most recent of these evaluations, conducted in
                            early 1998, assessed progress as being satisfactory but also identified some
                            specific areas, such as determining training exercise requirements, where
                            progress has not been satisfactory.

                            USACOM  recently developed a new strategic planning system and was giving
                            increased attention to the monitoring and accomplishment of tasks
                            designed to achieve established goals, objectives, and subobjectives in
                            major areas of focus at the Command, including joint training, force
                            providing, and integration. While USACOM officials believed the actions
                            being taken would ultimately improve joint military capabilities, the new
                            system’s assessments and measures could not be used to evaluate the
                            difference the Command was making in military capabilities. The Results
                            Act principles call for performance planning to include performance
                            measures to help assess whether goals and missions are being
                            accomplished. Command officials believed they needed more detailed
                            guidance from DOD for implementing the Results Act principles.




                            Page 8                                   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Executive Summary




Views within DOD of the value of USACOM’s contributions varied by
organization and functional role. In describing the Command’s
contributions as a joint force trainer, USACOM and its service components
pointed primarily to its joint task force headquarters training program,
describing it as unique high-fidelity training. The value of this training to
other geographic commands has been quite limited for several reasons.
Participation requires a significant investment of time and staff, as the
training is lengthy and much of it is conducted at USACOM’s simulation
facility in the Norfolk, Virginia, area. The commands have also been
concerned that the scenarios used in the training might have limited
applicability in their areas of operational responsibility. The commands
have preferred to provide their own joint training for their assigned forces,
including their headquarters staff. While concentrating on its joint task
force commanders training program, USACOM has, until recently, given little
attention to its interoperability training exercise program for which its
service components are brought together to train on joint tasks or
capabilities considered essential to accomplishing missions in a joint
environment. It has relied on its service components to plan and execute
the training, and as a result, the training has not always had the intended
joint operational emphasis.

As a major joint force provider, USACOM is valued by the Joint Staff, the
geographic commands it supports, and its service component commands.
USACOM and its service component commands see USACOM as an “honest
broker” that draws upon the range of forces and capabilities available
among the services, when necessary, to respond to the mission
requirements of the geographic commands. These commands also saw
benefit in having a single, unified command act as an arbitrator among
themselves and as their spokesman on issues with other DOD
organizations. The Joint Staff believed the Command had made important
improvements in the process, particularly valuing the cross-service
coordination that USACOM provides in identifying force capabilities to meet
the mission needs of the commands that request forces. The Central and
Southern Commands, which have very few assigned forces, described
USACOM and its service component commands as a dependable and
responsive force provider. Similarly, the European Command, which has
forces assigned, valued USACOM’s support, noting that the Command has
ensured equitable tasking among continental U.S.-based forces and has
allowed the European Command to concentrate on the operation at hand.

In force integration, USACOM believed the payoff of its investments in
advanced technology projects would be seen when the joint capabilities



Page 9                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                            Executive Summary




                            developed are deployed. On a more near-term basis, the Command was
                            increasing its attention to interoperability problems in select areas, such
                            as theater missile defense and information operations. It recently achieved
                            a major success when DOD approved joint requirements, developed by
                            USACOM with the support of the other geographic commands, for the
                            theater ballistic missile defense program. USACOM believed this was an
                            indication of potential growth in its influence in a requirements generation
                            system and acquisition process that has long been dominated by the
                            military services. An important next step is for the military services, which
                            acquire the weapon systems and equipment and manage much of the
                            money used to fix interoperability problems, to invest the resources
                            required to make the changes needed to improve interoperability. The
                            services have not always been willing to make such investments. The
                            geographic commands GAO visited were generally not keenly aware of
                            USACOM’s integration efforts and therefore could not comment on the
                            Command’s contributions.


Command Still Being         The Unified Command Plan, which serves as the charter for USACOM and
Assimilated and Roles and   the other unified commands, only broadly describes the roles and
Responsibilities Expanded   responsibilities of the commands. USACOM’s training role, however, is
                            identified and discussed in detail throughout the Chairman of the Joint
                            Chief of Staff’s training and policy guidance, including the Joint Training
                            Manual and Joint Training Master Plan. In contrast, USACOM’s joint force
                            provider and integrator roles have not been incorporated in joint
                            publications and guidance to provide a common institutional
                            understanding of the Command’s functional roles. For example, a key joint
                            guidance document for planning and executing military operations—the
                            Joint Operational Planning and Execution System—does not specifically
                            discuss USACOM’s role as a force provider.

                            USACOM’s  size and responsibilities have been expanded considerably. In
                            October 1998, five activities controlled by the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of
                            Staff, were transferred to USACOM in line with reform initiatives to
                            streamline DOD headquarters organizations. These activities include the
                            Joint Warfare Analysis Center, the Joint Command and Control Warfare
                            Center, the Joint Warfighting Center, the Joint Battle Center, and the Joint
                            Communications Support Element. In October 1998, the Deputy Secretary
                            of Defense approved the 1999 realignment and restructuring of several
                            additional activities affecting USACOM. USACOM believed these added
                            capabilities strengthen the Command’s abilities to provide joint training,
                            force integration, and joint experimentation, and support and to develop



                            Page 10                                   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                  Executive Summary




                  and assess joint doctrine. The Commander in Chief of USACOM believed the
                  Command’s ability to influence decisions on joint training, doctrine, and
                  operations was also enhanced.

                  The Secretary of Defense also assigned USACOM responsibility for joint
                  concept development and experimentation and the joint deployment
                  process, effective October 1998. With joint experimentation, USACOM serves
                  as the integrator of a range of joint experiments intended to foster
                  innovation and rapid fielding of new joint operational concepts and
                  capabilities. The Secretary of Defense expected that this joint
                  experimentation would facilitate the development of new joint doctrine,
                  improve joint training and education, and enhance the consideration of
                  joint requirements in the weapons and material acquisition processes. A
                  $30 million fiscal year 1999 budget was approved by DOD for USACOM for
                  joint experimentation. As owner of the joint deployment process, USACOM
                  is responsible for improving the efficiency of force deployment activities.
                  USACOM officials believed this new role would also offer opportunities to
                  improve its efficiency as a force provider. Additional resource
                  requirements for this role were expected by the Command to be minimal.


                  It is important that USACOM be able to evaluate its performance and impact
Recommendations   in maximizing joint military capabilities. Such assessments, while very
                  difficult to make, could help the Command better determine what it needs
                  to do to enhance its performance. GAO, therefore, recommends that the
                  Secretary of Defense direct the Commander in Chief of USACOM to adopt
                  performance goals and measures that will enable the Command to assess
                  its performance in accomplishing its mission of maximizing joint military
                  capabilities.

                  Additionally, as USACOM attempts to advance the evolution of joint military
                  capabilities and its role continues to expand, it is important that the
                  Command’s roles and responsibilities be clearly defined, understood, and
                  supported throughout DOD. Only USACOM’s roles and responsibilities in joint
                  training have been so defined in DOD policy and guidance documents.
                  Therefore, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense fully
                  incorporate USACOM’s functional roles, authorities, and responsibilities in
                  appropriate DOD directives and publications, including joint doctrine and
                  guidance.




                  Page 11                                  GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                       Executive Summary




                       In written comments (see app. VII) on a draft of this report, DOD concurred
Agency Comments        with GAO’s recommendations. In its comments, DOD provided additional
and GAO’s Evaluation   information on USACOM’s efforts to establish performance goals and
                       objectives and DOD’s efforts to incorporate USACOM’s functional roles,
                       authorities, and responsibilities in appropriate DOD directives and
                       publications. This information has been incorporated at appropriate places
                       in the report.

                       Regarding GAO’s recommendation to incorporate USACOM’s functional roles,
                       authorities, and responsibilities in appropriate DOD directives and
                       publications, DOD said the 1999 Unified Command Plan, which is currently
                       under its cycle review process, will further define USACOM’s functional
                       roles as they have evolved over the past 2 years. It also noted that key
                       training documents have been, or are being, updated. GAO believes that in
                       addition to the Unified Command Plan and joint training documents, the
                       joint guidance for planning and executing military operations—the Joint
                       Operational Planning and Execution System process—should discuss
                       USACOM’s role as the major provider of forces.




                       Page 12                                  GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Page 13   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Contents



Executive Summary                                                                                   4


Chapter 1                                                                                          16
                         A Vision for a New Command                                                16
Introduction             Expanding Atlantic Command to Become the Joint Force                      17
                            Integrator
                         Initial Charter Documents Provide Direction for Establishing the          18
                            Command
                         Overview of USACOM                                                        19
                         Objectives, Scope, and Methodology                                        23


Chapter 2                                                                                          25
                         Some Successes Achieved by USACOM as Joint Force Trainer                  25
USACOM Has Had           Command Assumes Much More Limited Role as Force Provider                  30
Successes and Major      Integrator Role Evolves Into a Process to Improve                         37
                            Interoperability and Joint Capabilities
Redirection in
Implementing Its
Functional Roles
Chapter 3                                                                                          42
                         USACOM’s Assessments Provide Little Insight on Value of                   42
Value of USACOM’s          Command’s Contributions
Contributions to Joint   Goals and Objectives Established, but Assessments of                      45
                           Command’s Impact Not Planned
Military Capabilities    Views Regarding the Value of USACOM’s Contributions                       47


Chapter 4                                                                                          53
                         Joint Training Role Has Been Institutionalized                            53
Command Still Being      Other Functional Roles Not Yet Institutionalized                          53
Assimilated and Roles    USACOM’s Roles and Responsibilities Have Been Further                     54
                           Expanded
and Responsibilities
Expanded
Chapter 5                                                                                          60
                         Conclusions                                                               60
Conclusions and          Recommendations                                                           61
Recommendations          Agency Comments and Our Evaluation                                        62




                         Page 14                                 GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
             Contents




Appendixes   Appendix I: U.S. Atlantic Command Organization                            64
             Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology                           66
             Appendix III: Training Categories                                         69
             Appendix IV: Adaptive Joint Force Packaging Concept                       70
             Appendix V: USACOM’s Force Provider Process Description of                74
               Process
             Appendix VI: USACOM’s Low-Density/High-Demand Assets                      79
             Appendix VII: Comments From the Department of Defense                     80
             Appendix VIII: Major Contributors to This Report                          82


Glossary                                                                               83


Tables       Table 1.1: Events That Led to Expansion of the U.S. Atlantic              18
               Command
             Table 2.1: USACOM’s Advanced Concept Technology                           39
               Demonstration Projects
             Table 3.1: Examples of Goals, Objectives, and Subobjectives in            46
               USACOM Major Focus Areas
             Table 4.1: Missions and Authorizations for Five Activities                55
               Transferred to USACOM
             Table VI.1: USACOM’s Low-Density/High-Demand Assets                       79


Figures      Figure 1.1: Organizational Structure of the Unified Commands              20
             Figure 1.2: Assignment of Worldwide Areas and Forces by                   22
               Geographic Command
             Figure 2.1: USACOM’s Training Center Provides State-of-the-Art            28
               Equipment to Facilitate Joint Task Force Commander Training
             Figure 2.2: USACOM’s Process for Providing Forces                         32
             Figure 3.1: Evolution of Joint Operations                                 45
             Figure I.1: Organizational Structure of USACOM                            65
             Figure IV.1: Tailoring Capabilities in an Adaptive Joint Force            71
               Package




             Abbreviations

             DOD        Department of Defense
             CONUS      continental United States
             NATO       North Atlantic Treaty Organization
             USACOM     U.S. Atlantic Command


             Page 15                                 GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 1

Introduction


                     Until 1993, most forces based in the United States were not assigned to a
                     single geographic command. Due to their location, these forces had
                     limited opportunities to train jointly with the overseas-based forces they
                     would joint in time of crisis or war. The lack of a joint headquarters to
                     oversee the forces of the four military services based in the continental
                     United States (CONUS) was long considered a problem that the Joint Chiefs
                     of Staff tried twice to fix. The concept of a joint headquarters for
                     U.S.-based forces resurfaced again at the end of the Cold War and led to
                     the establishment of the U.S. Atlantic Command (USACOM) in 1993 as the
                     unified command for most forces based in CONUS.


                     With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Eastern European
A Vision for a New   communist regimes in 1989, the Cold War was over and a new world order
Command              began. Senior Department of Defense (DOD) leadership began considering
                     the implications of such changes on the Department. They recognized that
                     the end of the Cold War would result in reduced defense budgets and
                     forces, especially overseas-based forces, and more nontraditional, regional
                     operations such as peacekeeping and other operations short of a major
                     theater war. In developing a CONUS power projection strategy, they looked
                     at options for changing the worldwide command structure, which included
                     establishing an Americas Command.

                     The initial concept for an Americas Command—a command that would
                     have geographic responsibility for all of North and South America—was
                     not widely accepted by DOD leadership. However, the Chairman, Joint
                     Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, and other senior military leaders
                     during the early 1990s increased attention to the need to place all
                     CONUS-based forces under one joint command to respond to worldwide
                     contingencies. Factors influencing this concept were the anticipation that
                     the overall DOD force drawdown would increase reliance on CONUS-based
                     forces and that joint military operations would become predominant.
                     Chairman Powell believed such a command was needed because
                     CONUS-based forces remained service-oriented. These forces needed to
                     train to operate jointly as a way of life and not just during an occasional
                     exercise. The concept of one command providing joint training to
                     CONUS-based forces and deploying integrated joint forces worldwide to
                     meet contingency operations was recommended by Chairman Powell in a
                     1993 report on roles and missions to the Secretary of Defense.1 The
                     mission of this command would be to train and deploy CONUS-based forces

                     1
                      Roles, Missions, and Functions of the Armed Forces of the United States, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
                     of Staff, February 1993.



                     Page 16                                                 GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                     Chapter 1
                     Introduction




                     as a joint team, and the Chairman concluded that the U.S. Atlantic
                     Command was best suited to assume this mission.


                     The Chairman’s 1993 report on roles and missions led to an expansion of
Expanding Atlantic   the roles of the U.S. Atlantic Command. Most notably, the Secretary of
Command to Become    Defense, upon review of the Chairman’s report, endorsed the concept of
the Joint Force      one command overseeing the joint training, integrating, and deploying of
                     CONUS-based forces. With this lead, but without formal guidance from the
Integrator           Joint Staff, USACOM leadership began developing plans to expand the
                     Command. As guidance and the plan for implementing the Command’s
                     expanded roles developed, DOD’s military leadership surfaced many issues.
                     Principal among these issues was whether (1) all CONUS-based forces
                     would come under the Command, including those on the west coast;
                     (2) the Commander in Chief (Commander) of USACOM would remain the
                     Commander of NATO’s Supreme Allied Command, Atlantic; and (3) the
                     Command would retain a geographic area of responsibility along with its
                     functional responsibilities as joint force integrator.

                     While these issues were settled early by the Secretary of Defense, some
                     issues were never fully resolved, including who would be responsible for
                     developing joint force packages for deployment overseas in support of
                     operations and numerous concerns about who would have command
                     authority over forces. This lack of consensus on the expansion and
                     implementation of USACOM was expressed in key military commands’
                     review comments and objections to USACOM’s implementation plan and
                     formal changes to the Unified Command Plan. Table 1.1 provides a
                     chronology of key events that led to giving the U.S. Atlantic Command the
                     new responsibilities for training, integrating, and providing CONUS-based
                     forces for worldwide operations.




                     Page 17                                  GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                                 Chapter 1
                                 Introduction




Table 1.1: Events That Led to
Expansion of the U.S. Atlantic   Time frame          Event
Command                          1989
                                 Fall                Berlin Wall falls and Cold War ends.
                                 1990
                                 March               Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, proposes Americas Command
                                                     in Unified Command Plan review.
                                 1992
                                 August              Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, proposes a permanent,
                                                     CONUS-based command to respond to worldwide
                                                     contingencies.
                                 1993
                                 February            Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, recommends establishing the
                                                     U.S. Atlantic Command in his Roles, Missions, and Functions of
                                                     the Armed Forces of the United States report.

                                 March               Secretary of Defense endorses Chairman’s recommendation.

                                                     Commander, U.S. Atlantic Command, establishes
                                                     implementation working group for expanding the Command’s
                                                     roles.

                                 April               Secretary of Defense directs service secretaries and unified
                                                     commanders to implement the Chairman’s recommendation.

                                 May/June            Draft plan for implementing USACOM concept presented to
                                                     military services and unified commanders for comment.

                                 August              Final review of USACOM implementation plan by military
                                                     service, component, and unified commanders.

                                                     Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, requests Secretary of Defense’s
                                                     approval of Unified Command Plan changes, including
                                                     expansion of USACOM’s roles.

                                 October             Secretary of Defense directs implementation of Unified
                                                     Command Plan revisions and approves USACOM
                                                     implementation plan, effective October 1, 1993.
                                 Source: USACOM.




                                 The USACOM implementation plan and revised Unified Command Plan, both
Initial Charter                  issued in October 1993, provided the initial approval and guidance for
Documents Provide                expanding the responsibilities of the U.S. Atlantic Command. The Unified
Direction for                    Command Plan gave USACOM “additional responsibilities for the joint
                                 training, preparation, and packaging of assigned CONUS-based forces for
Establishing the                 worldwide employment” and assigned it four service component
Command                          commands. The implementation plan provided the institutional framework




                                 Page 18                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                         Chapter 1
                         Introduction




                         and direction for establishing USACOM as the “Joint Force Integrator” of the
                         bulk of CONUS-based forces. As the joint force integrator, USACOM was to
                         maximize America’s military capability through joint training, force
                         integration, and deployment of ready CONUS-based forces to support
                         geographic commanders, its own, and domestic requirements. This
                         mission statement, detailed in the implementation plan, evolved into
                         USACOM’s functional roles as joint force trainer, provider, and integrator.


                         The USACOM implementation plan was developed by a multiservice working
                         group for the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and approved by the
                         Secretary of Defense and the Chairman. The plan provided USACOM the
                         basic concept of its mission, responsibilities, and forces. It further detailed
                         the basic operational concept to be implemented in six areas. Three of
                         these areas of particular relevance to USACOM’s new functional roles were
                         (1) the adaptive joint force packaging concept; (2) joint force training and
                         interoperability concepts; and (3) USACOM joint doctrine and joint tactics,
                         techniques, and procedures.2 The Command was given 12 to 24 months to
                         complete the transition.

                         The Unified Command Plan is reviewed and updated not less than every
                         2 years. In 1997, USACOM’s functional roles were revised in the plan for the
                         first time to include the following:

                     •   Conduct joint training of assigned forces and assigned Joint Task Force3
                         staffs, and support other unified commands as required.
                     •   As joint force integrator, develop joint, combined, interagency capabilities
                         to improve interoperability and enhance joint capabilities through
                         technology, systems, and doctrine.
                     •   Provide trained and ready joint forces in response to the capability
                         requirements of supported geographic commands.


                         DOD has nine unified commands, each of which comprises forces from two
Overview of USACOM       or more of the military departments and is assigned broad continuing
                         missions. These commands report to the Secretary of Defense, with the

                         2
                          Joint doctrine is the fundamental principles that guide the employment of forces from two or more
                         services in coordinated action toward a common objective. Joint tactics, techniques, and procedures
                         are published by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and detail the actions and methods that implement
                         joint doctrine and describe how forces will be employed in joint operations.
                         3
                          A joint task force comprises units and personnel from two or more of the military services and is
                         established on a geographical area or functional basis when a mission has a specific limited objective
                         and does not require centralized control of logistics. It is dissolved when its purpose has been achieved
                         or when it is no longer required. For example, USACOM established a joint task force in May 1994 to
                         provide humanitarian assistance to Haitians escaping by sea from political strife.



                         Page 19                                                  GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                                               Chapter 1
                                               Introduction




                                               Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff functioning as their spokesman. Four
                                               of the commands are geographic commands that are primarily responsible
                                               for planning and conducting military operations in assigned regions of the
                                               world, and four are functional commands that support military operations.
                                               The ninth command, USACOM, is unique in that it has both geographic and
                                               functional missions. Figure 1.1 shows the organizational structure of the
                                               unified commands.



Figure 1.1: Organizational Structure of the Unified Commands

                                                     Secretary
                                                        of
                                                     Defense


                                                                            Chairman of the
                                                                          Joint Chiefs of Staff




       U.S.                      U.S.                  U.S.                   U.S. Special                   U.S.
     Southern                  European               Atlantic                Operations                 Transportation
     Command                   Command               Command                   Command                     Command




                    U.S.                    U.S.                    U.S.                       U.S.
                   Central                 Pacific                 Space                     Strategic
                  Command                 Command                 Command                    Command




         Functional

         Geographic

         Functional and geographic

         Communications
                                               Source: The Joint Staff Officer’s Guide (1997), Armed Forces Staff College, Norfolk, Virginia.




                                               Page 20                                                   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 1
Introduction




In addition to its headquarters staff, USACOM has several subordinate
commands, such as U.S. Forces Azores, and its four service component
commands—the Air Force’s Air Combat Command, the Army’s Forces
Command, the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet Command and the Marines Corps’
Marine Corps Forces Atlantic. Appendix I shows USACOM’s organizational
structure. USACOM’s service component commands comprise
approximately 1.4 million armed forces personnel, or about 80 percent of
the active and reserve forces based in the CONUS, and more than 65 percent
of U.S. active and reserve forces worldwide. Figure 1.2 shows the areas of
the world and percentage of forces assigned to the geographic commands.




Page 21                                 GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                                              Chapter 1
                                              Introduction




Figure 1.2: Assignment of Worldwide Areas and Forces by Geographic Command

      Arctic Ocean                                      Arctic Ocean                                                        Arctic Ocean




 North
 Pacific
 Ocean

                                         USACOM



                                                                                                                                            North
                                                                                                                                            Pacific
                                    North                                                                                                   Ocean
                                   Atlantic
                                    Ocean
                                                             USEUCOM
                                                                                USCENTCOM

           USPACOM




                              USSOUTHCOM

                                                                                                       USPACOM

              South
              Pacific
               Ocean                                                                         Indian Ocean
                                                   South
                                                  Atlantic
                                                                       Geographic command                   Percentage of assigned forces
                                                   Ocean


                                                                               Atlantic (USACOM)                          20.4%



                                                                               Central (USCENTCOM)                                   8.6%
                                                                                                                                              2.1%


                                                                               European (USEUCOM)
                                                                                                                                              1.0%
                                                                                                                       67.9%

                                                                               Pacific (USPACOM)



                                                                               Southern (USSOUTHCOM)




                                              Note: World areas in white have not been assigned to a geographic command. By order of the
                                              Secretary of Defense, on October 1, 1999, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
                                              and Tajikistan in Central Asia will be added to the U.S. Central Command’s area of responsibility.

                                              Source: Our analysis of DOD’s data.




                                              Page 22                                                              GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                     Chapter 1
                     Introduction




                     While USACOM’s personnel levels gradually increased in its initial years of
                     expansion—from about 1,600 in fiscal year 1994 to over 1,750 in fiscal
                     year 1997—its civilian and military personnel level dropped to about 1,6004
                     in fiscal year 1998, primarily because part of USACOM’s geographic
                     responsibilities were transferred to the U.S. Southern Command.5 During
                     this period, USACOM’s operations and maintenance budget, which is
                     provided for through the Department of the Navy, grew from about
                     $50 million to about $90 million. Most of the increase was related to
                     establishing the Joint Training, Analysis and Simulation Center, which
                     provides computer-assisted training to joint force commanders, staff, and
                     service components. The Command’s size increased significantly in
                     October 1998, when five activities, controlled by the Chairman, Joint
                     Chiefs of Staff, and their approximately 1,100 personnel were transferred
                     to USACOM. The Secretary of Defense also assigned USACOM authority and
                     responsibility for DOD’s joint concept development and experimentation in
                     1998. An initial budget of $30 million for fiscal year 1999 for these activities
                     was approved by DOD. USACOM estimates it will have 151 personnel assigned
                     to these activities by October 2000.


                     In response to congressional interest in DOD’s efforts to improve joint
Objectives, Scope,   operations, we reviewed the assimilation of USACOM into DOD as the major
and Methodology      trainer, provider, and integrator of forces for worldwide deployment. More
                     specifically, we determined (1) USACOM’s actions to establish itself as the
                     joint force trainer, provider, and integrator of most continental U.S.-based
                     forces; (2) views on the value of the Command’s contributions to joint
                     military capabilities; and (3) recent expansion of the Command’s
                     responsibilities and its possible effect on the Command. We focused on
                     USACOM’s functional roles; we did not examine the rationale for USACOM’s
                     geographic and NATO responsibilities or the effect of these responsibilities
                     on the execution of USACOM’s functional roles.

                     To accomplish our objectives, we met with officials and representatives of
                     USACOM   and numerous other DOD components and reviewed studies,
                     reports, and other documents concerning the Command’s history and its
                     activities as a joint trainer, provider, and integrator. We performed our
                     fieldwork from May 1997 to August 1998. A more detailed discussion of the


                     4
                      Only 373 of these personnel were at USACOM headquarters. The remaining personnel were in
                     subordinate activities or commands such as the Command’s joint intelligence center (710), Joint Task
                     Force-6 (180), Information Systems Support Group (120), and subunified commands (100).
                     5
                     USACOM’s geographic area of responsibility covers the majority of the Atlantic Ocean, excluding the
                     waters around Central and South America, the Caribbean Sea, and the Gulf of Mexico.



                     Page 23                                                GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 1
Introduction




scope and methodology of our review, including organizations visited,
officials interviewed, and documents reviewed, is in appendix II.

Our review was performed in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.




Page 24                                 GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 2

USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
Roles
                             In pursuing its joint force trainer role, USACOM has generally followed its
                             1993 implementation plan, making notable progress in developing a joint
                             task force commander training program and establishing a state-of-the-art
                             simulation training center. The joint force provider and integrator roles
                             were redirected with the decision, in late 1995, to deviate from the concept
                             of adaptive joint force packages, a major element of the implementation
                             plan. For its role as joint force provider, USACOM has adopted a
                             process-oriented approach that is less proactive in meeting force
                             requirements for worldwide deployments and is more acceptable to
                             supported geographic commanders. To carry out its integrator role,
                             USACOM has adopted an approach that advances joint capabilities and force
                             interoperability through a combination of technology, systems, and
                             doctrine initiatives.


                             USACOM   planned to improve joint force training and interoperability
Some Successes               through six initiatives laid out in its implementation plan. The initiatives
Achieved by USACOM           were to (1) improve the exercise scheduling process, (2) develop mobile
as Joint Force Trainer       training teams, (3) train joint task force commanders and staffs,
                             (4) schedule the use of service ranges and training facilities for joint
                             training and interoperability, (5) assist its service components in unit-level
                             training intended to ensure the interoperability of forces and equipment,
                             and (6) develop a joint and combined (with allied forces) training program
                             for U.S. forces in support of nontraditional missions, such as peacekeeping
                             and humanitarian assistance. USACOM has taken actions on the first two
                             initiatives and has responded to the third, fifth, and sixth initiatives
                             through its requirements-based joint training program. While the fourth
                             initiative was included in the Command’s implementation plan, USACOM
                             subsequently recognized that it did not have the authority to schedule
                             training events at the service-owned ranges and facilities.


Actions Taken to Improve     The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff initially gave USACOM executive
Exercise Scheduling and to   agent authority (authority to act on his behalf) for joint training, including
Develop Mobile Teams         the scheduling of all geographic commander training exercises, USACOM’s
                             first initiative. In September 1996, the Chairman removed this authority in
                             part because of resistance from the other geographic commands. By
                             summer 1997, the Chairman, through the Joint Training Policy, again
                             authorized USACOM to resolve scheduling conflicts for worldwide training.
                             While USACOM maintains information on all training that the services’
                             forces are requested to participate in, the information is not adequately
                             automated to enable the Command to efficiently fulfill the scheduling



                             Page 25                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                               Chapter 2
                               USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
                               Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
                               Roles




                               function. The Command has defined the requirement for such information
                               support and is attempting to determine how that requirement will be met.

                               USACOM   does provide mobile training teams to other commands for training
                               exercises. Generally, these teams cover the academic phase of the
                               exercises. The Command, for example, sent a training team to Kuwait to
                               help the Central Command prepare its joint task force for a recent
                               operation. It also has included training support, which may include mobile
                               training teams, for the other geographic commanders in its long-range
                               joint training schedule.


Requirements-Based Joint       To satisfy its third, fifth, and sixth initiatives, USACOM has developed a joint
Training Program               training program that reflects the supported geographic commanders’
Established                    stated requirements. These are expressed as joint tasks essential to
                               accomplishing assigned or anticipated missions (joint mission-essential
                               tasks). The Command’s training program is derived from the six training
                               categories identified in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s joint
                               training manual and are described in appendix III. USACOM primarily
                               provides component interoperability and joint training and participates in
                               and supports multinational interoperability, joint and multinational, and
                               interagency and intergovernmental training. The Command’s primary
                               focus has been on joint task force training under guidance provided by the
                               Secretary of Defense.


Joint Task Force               Joint training, conducted primarily at USACOM’s Joint Training, Analysis and
Commander Training             Simulation Center, encompasses a series of exercises—Unified
                               Endeavor—that provide training for joint force commanders and their
                               staffs. The training focuses on operational and strategic tasks and has
                               evolved into a multiphased exercise. USACOM uses state-of-the-art modeling
                               and simulation technology and different exercise modules that allows the
                               exercise to be adapted to meet the specific needs of the training
                               participants. For example, one module provides the academic phase of the
                               training and another module provides all phases of an exercise. Until
                               recently, the exercises generally included three phases, but USACOM added
                               analysis as a fourth phase.

                           •   Phase I includes a series of seminars covering a broad spectrum of
                               operational topics. Participants develop a common understanding of joint
                               issues.




                               Page 26                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
    Chapter 2
    USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
    Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
    Roles




•   Phase II presents a realistic scenario in which the joint task force launches
    crisis action planning and formulates an operations order.
•   Phase III implements the operations order through a computer-simulated
    exercise that focuses on joint task force procedures, decision-making, and
    the application of doctrine.
•   Phase IV, conducted after the exercise, identifies lessons learned, joint
    after-action reviews, and the commander’s exercise report.

    USACOM  and others consider the Command’s Joint Training, Analysis and
    Simulation Center to be a world premier center of next-generation
    computer modeling and simulation and a centerpiece for joint task force
    training. The Center is equipped with secured communications and video
    capabilities that enable commands around the world to participate in its
    exercises. These capabilities allow USACOM to conduct training without
    incurring the significant expenses normally associated with large field
    training exercises and help reduce force personnel and operating tempos.
    For example, before the Center was created, a joint task force exercise
    would require approximately 45,000 personnel at sea or in the field. With
    the Center, only about 1,000 headquarters personnel are involved. As of
    December 1998, USACOM had conducted seven Unified Endeavor exercises
    and planned to provide varying levels of support to at least 17
    exercises—Unified Endeavor and otherwise—per year during fiscal
    years 1999-2001. Figure 2.1 shows one of the Center’s rooms used for the
    Unified Endeavor exercises.




    Page 27                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                                         Chapter 2
                                         USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
                                         Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
                                         Roles




Figure 2.1: USACOM’s Training Center
Provides State-of-the-Art Equipment to
Facilitate Joint Task Force
Commander Training




                                         Source: TRW, Inc.




                                         We attended the Unified Endeavor 98-1 exercise to observe firsthand the
                                         training provided in this joint environment. While smooth joint operations
                                         evolved over the course of the exercise, service representatives initially
                                         tended to view problems and pressure situations from a service rather
                                         than a joint perspective. The initial phase allowed the key officers and
                                         their support staff, including foreign participants, to grasp the details of
                                         the scenario. These details included the basic rules of engagement and
                                         discussions of what had to be accomplished to plan the operation. In the
                                         exercise’s second phase, staff from the participating U.S. and foreign
                                         military services came together to present their proposals for deploying
                                         and employing their forces. As the exercise evolved, service
                                         representatives came to appreciate the value and importance of
                                         coordinating every aspect of their operations with the other services and
                                         the joint task force commander. The third phase of the exercise was a



                                         Page 28                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                            Chapter 2
                            USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
                            Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
                            Roles




                            highly stressful environment. The joint task force commander and his staff
                            were presented with numerous unknowns and an overwhelming amount
                            of information. Coordination and understanding among service elements
                            became paramount to successfully resolving these situations.


Interoperability Training   For interoperability training, units from more than one of USACOM’s service
                            components are brought together in field exercises to practice their skills
                            in a joint environment. USACOM sponsors three recurring interoperability
                            exercises in which the Command coordinates the training opportunities
                            for its component commands, provides specific joint mission-essential
                            tasks for incorporation into the training, and approves the exercise’s
                            design. The goal of the training is to ensure that U.S. military personnel
                            and units are not confronted with a joint warfighting task for the first time
                            after arrival in a geographic command’s area of responsibility. For
                            example, USACOM sponsors a recurring combat aircraft flying
                            exercise—Quick Force—that is designed to train Air Force and
                            participating Navy and Marine Corps units in joint air operations tailored
                            to Southwest Asia. This exercise is devised to train commanders and
                            aircrews to plan, coordinate, and execute complex day and night,
                            long-range joint missions from widely dispersed operating locations.

                            USACOM  relies on its service component commands to plan and execute
                            interoperability training as part of existing service field exercises.
                            According to USACOM’s chief for joint interoperability training, the service
                            component commanders are responsible for evaluating the joint training
                            proficiency demonstrated. The force commander of the exercise is
                            responsible for the accomplishment of joint training objectives and for
                            identifying any operational deficiencies in doctrine, training, material,
                            education, and organization. USACOM provides monitors to evaluate
                            exercise objectives. Until recently, USACOM limited its attention to
                            interoperability training, as its primary focus was on its Unified Endeavor
                            training program. As this training has matured, USACOM recently began to
                            increase its attention on more fully developing and planning the
                            Command’s interoperability training. The Command recently developed,
                            with concurrence from the other geographic commanders, a list of joint
                            interoperability tasks tied to the services’ mission-essential task lists. With
                            the development and acceptance of these joint interoperability tasks,
                            Command officials believe that their joint interoperability exercises will
                            have a better requirements base from which to plan and execute. Also,
                            USACOM is looking for ways to better tie these exercises to
                            computer-assisted modeling.



                            Page 29                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                           Chapter 2
                           USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
                           Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
                           Roles




Other Training Support     USACOM  provides joint and multinational training support through its
Provided by USACOM         coordination of U.S. participation in “partnership for peace” exercises. The
                           partnership for peace exercise program is a major North Atlantic Treaty
                           Organization (NATO) initiative directed at increasing confidence and
                           cooperative efforts among partner nations to reinforce regional stability.
                           The Command was recently designated the lead activity in the partnership
                           for peace simulation center network.

                           USACOM also supports training that involves intergovernmental agencies. Its
                           involvement is primarily through support to NATO, as Supreme Allied
                           Commander, Atlantic, and to non-DOD agencies. For example, USACOM has
                           begun including representatives of other federal agencies, such as the
                           State Department and Drug Enforcement Administration, in its Unified
                           Endeavor exercises.


                           USACOM   has made substantive changes to its approach to providing forces.
Command Assumes            Adaptive joint force packaging was to have been the foundation for
Much More Limited          implementing its force provider role. When this concept encountered
Role as Force              strong opposition, USACOM adopted a process-oriented approach that is
                           much less controversial with supported geographic commands and the
Provider                   military services. With over 65 percent of all U.S. forces assigned to it,
                           USACOM is the major source of forces for other geographic commands and
                           for military support and assistance to U.S. civil agencies. However, its
                           involvement in force deployment decisions varies from operation to
                           operation. The Command also helps its service components manage the
                           operating tempos of heavily used assets.


Force Package Concept      USACOM’s implementation plan introduced the operational concept of
Was Adopted but Replaced   adaptive joint force packages as an approach for carrying out USACOM’s
by Process-Oriented        functional roles, particularly the provider and integrator roles. Under this
                           approach, USACOM would develop force packages for operations less than a
Approach                   major regional war and complement, but not affect, the deliberate
                           planning process1 used by geographic commanders to plan for major
                           regional wars. USACOM’s development of these force packages, using its
                           CONUS-based forces, was conceived as a way to fill the void created by
                           reductions in forward-positioned forces and in-theater force capabilities in

                           1
                            A DOD planning process conducted principally in peacetime for the deployment and employment of
                           apportioned (the distribution of limited resources among competing requirements for planning
                           purposes) forces and resources in response to a hypothetical situation. The process relies heavily on
                           assumptions regarding the political and military circumstances that will exist when the plan is
                           implemented.



                           Page 30                                                 GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 2
USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
Roles




the early 1990s. It was designed to make the most efficient use of the full
array of forces and capabilities of the military services, exploring and
refining force package options to meet the geographic commanders’
needs. The approach, however, encountered much criticism and
resistance, particularly from other geographic commands and the military
services, which did not want or value a significant role for USACOM in
determining which forces to use in meeting mission requirements. Because
of this resistance and the unwillingness of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to support USACOM in its broad implementation of the force
packaging concept, USACOM largely abandoned it in 1995 and adopted a
process-oriented approach. Adaptive joint force packages and their demise
are discussed in appendix IV.

The major difference between the adaptive joint force packaging concept
and the process-oriented approach that replaced it is that the new
approach allows the supported geographic commander to “package” the
forces to suit his mission needs. In essence, USACOM prepares the assets,
which are put together as the supported commander sees fit rather than
having ready-to-go packages developed by USACOM. The new approach
retains aspects of the force packaging concept. Most notably, geographic
commanders are to present their force requirements in terms of the
capability needed, not in the traditional terms of requests for specific units
or forces. Forces are to be selected by the supported commanders, in
collaboration with USACOM, from across the services to avoid over-tasking
any particular force. The process is shown in figure 2.2 and discussed in
more detail in appendix V.




Page 31                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                                   Chapter 2
                                   USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
                                   Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
                                   Roles




Figure 2.2: USACOM’s Process for
Providing Forces



                                                                                    Requirements
                                                  Supported
                                                                                       Supported command states
                                                  Command                             requirements in terms of military
                                                                                      capabilities rather than
                                                                                      specific forces




                                                     Joint                  Validation
                                                                                Validates the reasonableness of
                                                     Staff                      and the ability to fulfill the requirement




                                                                                 Identification
                                               USACOM and                          Identifies all forces with
                                                 Service                           required capabilities
                                               Components                        Selection
                                                                                   Select the best available
                                                                                   force in conjunction with
                                             Coordination
                                                                                   the supported command, Joint
                                             Organization                          Staff, and service components

                                             Element/Action
                                                                                 Training
                                                                                   Ensure forces are
                                                                                   trained to appropriate
                                                                                   joint standards

                                                                                 Deployment
                                                                                   Deploy the force




                                   Source: USACOM.




                                   Page 32                                              GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                           Chapter 2
                           USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
                           Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
                           Roles




USACOM Is the Major        USACOM,  commanding nearly 68 percent of the combat forces assigned to
Provider of Forces         geographic commands, is the major provider of forces for worldwide
                           operations. The size of its assigned forces far exceeds the requirements for
                           operations within the Command’s area of responsibility, which is much
                           less demanding than that of other geographic commands. As a result,
                           USACOM can provide forces to all the geographic commands, and its forces
                           participate in the majority of military operations. The Command also
                           provides military support and assistance to civil authorities for domestic
                           requirements, such as hurricane relief and security at major U.S. events.
                           During 1998, USACOM supported over 25 major operations and many other
                           smaller operations worldwide. These ranged from peacekeeping and
                           humanitarian assistance to evacuation of U.S. and allied nationals from
                           threatened locations. On average, USACOM reported that it had over 30
                           ships, 400 aircraft, and 40,000 personnel deployed throughout 1998.

                           The Pacific, European, and Special Operations Commands also have
                           assigned forces, but they are unable to provide the same level of force
                           support to other commands as USACOM. The Pacific Command has large
                           Navy and Marine Corps forces but has limited Army and Air Force
                           capabilities. European Command officials said their Command rarely
                           provides forces to other commands because its forces are most often
                           responding to requirements in their own area of responsibility. The Special
                           Operations Command provides specialized forces to other commands for
                           unique operations. The Central and Southern Commands have very few
                           forces of their own and are dependent on force providers such as USACOM
                           to routinely furnish them with forces.


USACOM’s Involvement in    USACOM  provides forces throughout the world for the entire range of
Force Provider Decisions   military operations, from war to operations other than war that may or
Is Limited                 may not involve combat. Since the Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. military has
                           largely been involved in operations that focus on promoting peace and
                           deterring war, such as the U.S. military support to the NATO peacekeeping
                           mission in Bosnia and the enforcement of U.N. sanctions against Iraq. The
                           extent of USACOM’s involvement in force decisions varies from operation to
                           operation. In decisions regarding deployment of major combatant forces,
                           the Command plays a very limited role. The military services and USACOM’s
                           service components collaborate on such decisions. Although USACOM’s
                           interaction with geographic commands and service components may
                           influence force decisions, USACOM’s Commander stated that when specific
                           forces are requested by a geographic commander, his Command cannot
                           say “no” if those forces are available.



                           Page 33                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                          Chapter 2
                          USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
                          Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
                          Roles




                          USACOM  is not directly involved in the other geographic commands’
                          deliberate planning—the process for preparing joint operation
                          plans—except when there is a shortfall in the forces needed to implement
                          the plan or the supported commander requests USACOM’s involvement.
                          Every geographic command is to develop deliberate plans during
                          peacetime for possible contingencies within its area of responsibility as
                          directed by the national command authority and the Chairman of the Joint
                          Chiefs of Staff. As a supporting commander, USACOM and its service
                          component commands examine the operation plans of other commands to
                          help identify shortfalls in providing forces as needed to support the plans.
                          USACOM’s component commands work more closely with the geographic
                          commands and their service components to develop the deployment data
                          to sequence the movement of forces, logistics, and transportation to
                          implement the plan.

                          During crises, for which an approved operation plan may not exist, the
                          responsible geographic command either adjusts an existing plan or
                          develops a new one to respond to specific circumstances or taskings. The
                          time available for planning may be hours or days. The supported
                          commander may request inputs on force readiness and force alternatives
                          from USACOM and its component commands. A European Command official
                          said USACOM is seldom involved in his Command’s planning process for
                          crisis operations because of the compressed planning time before the
                          operation commences.

                          USACOM  has its greatest latitude in suggesting force options for military
                          operations other than war that do not involve combat operations, such as
                          nation assistance and overseas presence operations, and for ongoing
                          contingency operations. In these situations, time is often not as critical
                          and USACOM can work with the supported command and component
                          commands to develop possible across-the-service force options.


Attention Given to        A primary consideration in identifying and selecting forces for deployment
Balancing Operating and   is the operating and personnel tempos of the forces, which affect force
Personnel Tempos          readiness. As a force provider, USACOM headquarters supports its service
                          component commands in resolving tempo issues and monitors the
                          readiness of assigned forces and the impact of deployments on major
                          contingency and war plans. While tempo issues are primarily a service
                          responsibility, USACOM works with its service component commands and
                          the geographic commands to help balance force tempos to maintain the
                          readiness of its forces and desired quality-of-life standards. This involves



                          Page 34                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 2
USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
Roles




analyzing tempo data across its service components and developing force
alternatives for meeting geographic commands’ needs within tempo
guidelines.

According to USACOM officials, the Command devotes much attention to
managing certain assets with unique mission capabilities that are limited in
number and continually in high demand among the geographic commands
to support most crises, contingencies, and long-term joint task force
operations in their regions. These low-density/high-demand assets, such as
the Airborne Warning and Control Systems and E/A-6B electronic warfare
aircraft and Patriot missile batteries, are managed under the Chaiman of
the Joint Staff’s Global Military Force Policy. This policy, which guides
decisions on the peacetime use of assets that are few in number but high
in demand, establishes prioritization guidelines for their use and operating
tempo thresholds that can be exceeded only with Secretary of Defense
approval. The policy, devised in 1996, is intended to maintain required
levels of unit training and optimal use of the assets across all geographic
commander missions, while discouraging the overuse of selected assets.

USACOM  is responsible for 16 of the 32 low-density/high-demand assets2
—weapon systems and personnel units—that are included in the Global
Military Force Policy. The Pacific and European Commands have some of
these 16 assets, but the bulk of them are assigned to USACOM. These assets
are largely Air Force aircraft. In this support role, USACOM has initiated
several actions to help implement the policy, including bringing the
services and geographic commands together to resolve conflicts over the
distribution of assets, devising a monitoring report for the Joint Staff, and
recommending to the services assets that should be included in future
policy revisions. Appendix VI provides a list of the
low-density/high-demand assets currently assigned to USACOM.

The Global Military Force Policy does not capture all of the highly tasked
assets. For example, the policy does not include less prominent assets
such as dog teams, military security police, water purification systems,
intelligence personnel, and medical units. There were similar concerns
about the high operating tempos of these assets, and USACOM has
monitored them closely. Most of these assets, or alternatives to them, were
available across the services. Therefore, USACOM has some flexibility in
identifying alternative force options to help balance unit tempos.


2
 All assets of the remaining 16 asset types are assigned to the U.S. Special Operations Command.
These special operations forces asset types include Navy SEAL platoons, the Army’s 75th Ranger
Regiment, and the Air Force’s MH-60G helicopter.



Page 35                                                 GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 2
USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
Roles




Another Joint Staff policy affecting USACOM as a force provider is the
Global Naval Force Presence Policy. This policy establishes long-range
planning guidance for the location and number of U.S. naval
forces—aircraft carriers and surface combatant and amphibious
ships—provided to geographic commands on a fair-share basis. Under this
scheduling policy, the Navy controls the operating and personnel tempos
for these heavily demanded naval assets, while it ensures that geographic
commands’ requirements are met. USACOM has little involvement in
scheduling these assets. While this policy provides little flexibility for
creating deployment options in most situations, it can be adjusted by the
Secretary of Defense to meet unexpected contingencies.

According to an action officer in USACOM’s operations directorate, one of
USACOM’s difficulties in monitoring tempos has been the lack of joint tempo
guidelines that could be applied across service units and assets. Each
service has different definitions of what constitutes a deployment,
dissimilar policies or guidance for the length of time units or personnel
should be deployed, and different systems for tracking deployments. For
example, the Army defined a deployment as a movement during which a
unit spends an overnight away from its home station. Deployments to
combat training centers were not counted. In contrast, the Marine Corps
defines a deployment as any movement from the home station for 10 days
or more, including a deployment for training at its combat training center.
As a result, it is difficult to compare tempos among the services. An
official in USACOM’s operations directorate said the services would have to
develop joint tempo guidelines because they have the responsibility for
managing the tempos of their people and assets. The official did not
anticipate a movement anytime soon to create such guidelines because of
the differences in the types of assets and in the management and
deployment of the assets. DOD, in responding to a 1998 GAO report on joint
training, acknowledged that the services’ ability to measure overall
deployment rates is still evolving.3




3
 Joint Training: Observations on the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Exercise Program
(GAO/NSIAD-98-189, July 10, 1998).



Page 36                                                 GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                            Chapter 2
                            USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
                            Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
                            Roles




                            The integrator role has changed significantly since 1993 and is still
Integrator Role             evolving. It was originally tied to adaptive joint force packaging. But with
Evolves Into a              that concept’s demise, the Command’s role became to implement a
Process to Improve          process to improve interoperability and enhance joint force capabilities
                            through the blending of technology, systems, and doctrine. The
Interoperability and        Command’s force integration objectives are to (1) identify and refine
Joint Capabilities          doctrinal issues affecting joint force operations; (2) identify, develop,
                            evaluate, and incorporate new and emerging technologies to support joint
                            operations; and (3) refine and integrate existing systems to support joint
                            operations. The Command’s emphasis since 1996 has been to sponsor
                            advanced concept technology demonstration projects that have a
                            multiservice emphasis and search for solutions to joint interoperability
                            problems among advanced battle systems. It has given limited attention to
                            joint doctrinal issues.

                            Establishing its integration role has not been easy for USACOM. USACOM’s
                            Commander (1994-97) characterized the Command’s integration efforts as
                            a “real struggle” and said the Joint Staff was not supportive. The current
                            USACOM Commander expressed similar comments, citing the integration
                            role as the most challenging yet promising element of his Command’s
                            mission. He told us the Command stumbled at times and overcame
                            numerous false starts until its new integration role emerged. He said that
                            as USACOM’s functional roles mature, the Command may create more
                            friction with the services and other commands, many of which view
                            USACOM as a competitor. Its efforts were significantly enhanced with the
                            October 1998 transfer to the Command of five joint centers and activities
                            previously controlled by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (see
                            ch. 4).


Advanced Concept            USACOM’s primary means to fulfill its integration role has been to sponsor
Technology Demonstration    advanced concept technology demonstration projects. These projects are
Projects Provide Primary    designed to permit early and inexpensive evaluations of mature advanced
                            technologies to meet the needs of the warfighter. The Command
Means for Fulfilling Role   considered such projects to be the best way to achieve integration by
                            building new systems that are interoperable from the beginning. The
                            warfighter determines the military utility of the project before a
                            commitment is made to proceed with acquisition. These projects also
                            allow for the development and refinement of operational concepts for
                            using new capabilities.




                            Page 37                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 2
USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
Roles




As an advanced concept technology demonstration project sponsor,
USACOM provides an operations manager to lead an assessment to
determine the project’s joint military utility and to fully understand its
joint operational capability. The Command also provides the personnel for
the projects and writes the joint doctrine and concepts of operation to
effectively employ these technologies. USACOM only accepts projects that
promote interoperability and move the military toward new levels of
effectiveness in joint warfighting. Various demonstration managers, such
as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology,
fund the projects. At the completion of our review, USACOM was sponsoring
12 of DOD’s 41 active advanced concept technology demonstrations. It
completed work in 1996 on the Predator project,4 a medium-altitude
unmanned aerial vehicle that the Air Force is to acquire. Table 2.1
identifies each USACOM project and its funding through fiscal year 2003.




4
 The Predator is a fully autonomous, unmanned aerial vehicle with technology that provides
continuous day-and-night coverage with optical, infrared, and radar sensors. In March 1996, the
Predator began flying operational reconnaissance and surveillance missions in Bosnia. The advanced
concept technology demonstration evaluation was completed in September 1996 and transferred to the
Air Force, which began system production in August 1997.



Page 38                                               GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                                            Chapter 2
                                            USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
                                            Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
                                            Roles




Table 2.1: USACOM’s Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration Projects
Dollars in millions
Project                      Objective                                                                                          Funding
High Altitude Endurance      Provide near-real-time imagery to the warfighter by using two complementary,                         $1,011
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles     performance-enhanced air vehicles (Global Hawk, Darkstar) and a ground control
                             segment.
Joint Countermine            Demonstrate the capability to conduct a “seamless” transition of countermine operations                   556
                             from sea to land.
Synthetic Theater of War     Under exercise conditions, develop and preview technology that provides effective and                     215
                             efficient joint task force training.
Battlefield Awareness and    Disseminate and manage information for warfighter systems.                                                114
Data Dissemination
Semi-Automated Image         Develop tools to assist image analysts in exploiting large volumes of image data from                     119
Intelligence Processing      tactical image platforms.
Combat Identification        Demonstrate and assess the utility of air-to-surface and surface-to-surface technologies                  67
                             to positively identify friendly, hostile, and neutral platforms.
Navigation Warfare           Demonstrate proof of concept for preventing adversaries’ use of precision satellite                       57
                             navigation while protecting friendly access to Global Positioning System.
Joint Logistics              Develop joint decision support tools to achieve seamless interoperability and control of                  52
                             the logistic pipeline.
Advanced Joint Planning      Identify and enhance operational planning capabilities for the geographic commands.                       28
Joint Modular Lighter System Build and demonstrate a prototype causeway system to safely assemble and operate (in                      25
                             a loaded condition) through high sea conditions.
Integrated Collection        Allow Joint Task Force commanders to better synchronize intelligence, surveillance, and                   17
Management                   reconnaissance assets across national, theater, and tactical levels of control.
Link-16/Variable Message     Proof of concept for the exchange of information between Link-16 and Variable Message                      3
Format                       Format Ground networks.
                                            Source: USACOM.



                                            We issued a report in October 1998 on opportunities for DOD to improve its
                                            advanced concept technology demonstration program, including the
                                            process for selecting candidate projects and guidance on entering
                                            technologies into the normal acquisition process, and the risky practice of
                                            procuring prototypes beyond those needed for the basic demonstration
                                            and before completing product and concept demonstration.5




                                            5
                                             Defense Acquisitions: Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration Program Can Be Improved
                                            (GAO/NSIAD-99-4, Oct. 15, 1998).



                                            Page 39                                            GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                             Chapter 2
                             USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
                             Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
                             Roles




Interoperability and Other   In addition to its advanced concept technology demonstration projects,
USACOM Integration           USACOM has sought opportunities to advance the interoperability6 of

Efforts                      systems already deployed or about to be deployed that make a difference
                             on the battlefield. Particularly critical capabilities USACOM has identified for
                             interoperability enhancements include theater missile defense; command,
                             control, and communications; intelligence, surveillance, and
                             reconnaissance; and combat identification (friend or foe). The military
                             services have a long history of interoperability problems during joint
                             operations, primarily because DOD has not given sufficient consideration to
                             the need for weapon systems to operate with other systems, including
                             exchanging information effectively during a joint operation. We reported
                             on such weaknesses in the acquisition of command, control,
                             communications, computers, and intelligence systems in March 1998.7

                             A critical question is who pays the costs associated with joint
                             requirements that USACOM identifies in service acquisition programs? The
                             services develop weapon system requirements, and the dollars pass from
                             the Secretary of Defense to the services to satisfy the requirements. If
                             USACOM believes modifications are needed to a weapon system to enable it
                             to operate in a joint environment, the Command can elevate this
                             interoperability issue to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to
                             the Joint Requirements Oversight Council8 for action. For example, the
                             USACOM Commander recently told the Chairman and the Council that the
                             Air Force’s unwillingness to modify the Predator and the concept of
                             operations to allow other services to directly receive information from the
                             unmanned aerial vehicle would limit a joint commander’s flexibility in
                             using such vehicles, hurt interoperability, and inhibit the development of
                             joint tactics. According to USACOM’s Operations Manager for this area, the
                             Air Force needs to provide additional funding to make the Predator truly
                             joint but it wants to maintain operational control of the system. As of
                             November 1998, this interoperability concern had not been resolved.

                             USACOM  can also enhance force integration through its responsibility as the
                             trainer and readiness overseer of assigned reserve component forces. This
                             responsibility allows USACOM to influence the training and readiness of

                             6
                              Enhance the ability of such units or forces to provide and accept services with other systems, units, or
                             forces and to use these services to enable them to operate effectively together.
                             7
                              Joint Military Operations: Weaknesses in DOD’s Process for Certifying C4I Systems’ Interoperability
                             (GAO/NSIAD-98-73, Mar. 13, 1998).
                             8
                              The Joint Requirements Oversight Council, an instrument of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
                             and the Secretary of Defense, supports the Chairman by assessing military requirements for defense
                             acquisition programs, assessing joint warfighting capabilities, and assigning a joint priority among
                             major weapons meeting valid requirements.



                             Page 40                                                  GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 2
USACOM Has Had Successes and Major
Redirection in Implementing Its Functional
Roles




these reserves and their budgets to achieve full integration of the reserve
and active forces when the assigned reserves are mobilized.9 This is
important because of the increased reliance on reserve component forces
to carry out contingency missions. The USACOM Commander
(1993-97) described the Command’s oversight as a critical step in bringing
the reserve forces into the total joint force structure.




9
 A reserve unit does not come under the command authority of USACOM or another combatant
command until it is mobilized or ordered to active duty for purposes other than training.



Page 41                                             GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 3

Value of USACOM’s Contributions to Joint
Military Capabilities

                           USACOM  and others believe that the Command has helped advance the joint
                           military capabilities of U.S. forces. While USACOM has conducted several
                           self-assessments of its functional roles, we found that these assessments
                           provided little insight into the overall value of the Command’s efforts to
                           enhance joint capabilities. The Command has established goals and
                           objectives as a joint trainer, provider, and integrator and is giving
                           increased attention to monitoring and accomplishing tasks designed to
                           achieve these objectives and ultimately enhance joint operational
                           capabilities. Our discussions with various elements of DOD found little
                           consensus regarding the value of USACOM’s contributions in its functional
                           roles but general agreement that the Command is making important
                           contributions that should enhance U.S. military capabilities.


                           USACOM  has conducted three self-assessments of its functional roles. These
USACOM’s                   appraisals did not specifically evaluate the Command’s contribution to
Assessments Provide        improving joint operational capabilities but discussed progress of actions
Little Insight on Value    taken in its functional roles. The first two appraisals covered USACOM’s
                           success in executing its plan for implementing the functional roles, while
of Command’s               the most recent appraisal rated the Command’s progress in each of its
Contributions              major focus areas.1

                           In quarterly reports to the Secretary of Defense and in testimony before
                           the Congress, USACOM has presented a positive picture of its progress and
                           indicated that the military has reached an unprecedented level of
                           jointness.


Early Assessments Report   In a June 1994 interim report to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Progress on Implementing   USACOM’s Commander noted that the Command’s first 6 months of

Functional Roles           transition into its new functional roles had been eventful and that the
                           Command was progressing well in developing new methodologies to meet
                           the geographic commands’ needs. He recognized that it would take time
                           and the help of the service components to refine all the responsibilities
                           relating to the new mission. He reported that USACOM’s vision and strategic
                           plan had been validated and that the Command was on course and
                           anticipated making even greater progress in the next 6 months.

                           USACOM  performed a second assessment in spring 1996, in response to a
                           request from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a review of the

                           1
                            Major focus areas are the main areas, as defined by USACOM, where the Command must focus its
                           efforts to fulfill its vision and mission. These areas now include joint force trainer, joint force provider,
                           and joint force integrator.



                           Page 42                                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                         Chapter 3
                         Value of USACOM’s Contributions to Joint
                         Military Capabilities




                         success of USACOM’s implementation plan at the 2-year point. The
                         Command used Joint Vision 2010, the military’s long-range strategic vision,
                         as the template for measuring its success, but the document does not
                         provide specific measures for gauging improvements in operational
                         capabilities. USACOM reported that, overall, it had successfully implemented
                         its key assigned responsibilities and missions. It described its new
                         functional responsibilities as “interrelated,” having a synergistic effect on
                         the evolution of joint operations. It reported that it had placed major
                         emphasis on its joint force trainer role and noted development of a
                         three-tier training model. The Command described its joint force provider
                         role as a five-step process, with adaptive joint force packaging no longer a
                         critical component. Seeing the continuing evolution of its force provider
                         role as a key factor in supporting Joint Vision 2010, USACOM assessed the
                         implementation plan task as accomplished. The Command considered its
                         joint force integrator role the least developed but the most necessary in
                         achieving coherent joint operations and fulfilling Joint Vision 2010.
                         Although the assessment covered only the advanced concept technology
                         demonstrations segment of its integrator role, USACOM reported that it had
                         also successfully implemented this task.


Most Recent Assessment   As requested by USACOM’s Commander, USACOM staff assessed progress and
Cites Progress and       problems in the Command’s major focus areas in early 1998. This
Problems in Command’s    self-assessment covered the Command’s directorate-level leadership
                         responsible for each major focus area. An official involved in this
Major Focus Areas        assessment said statistical, quantifiable measures were not documented to
                         support the progress ratings; however, critical and candid comments were
                         made during the process. The assessments cited “progress” or
                         “satisfactory progress” in 38 of 42 rated areas, such as command focus on
                         joint training, advanced concept technology demonstration project
                         management, and monitoring of low-density/high-demand asset tempos.
                         Progress was judged “unsatisfactory” in four areas: (1) exercise
                         requirements determination and worldwide scheduling process;
                         (2) training and readiness oversight for assigned forces; (3) reserve
                         component integration and training, and readiness oversight; and
                         (4) institutionalizing the force provider process. This assessment was
                         discussed within the Command and during reviews of major focus areas
                         and was updated to reflect changes in command responsibilities.


Command Reports          USACOM, like other unified commands, uses several mechanisms to report
Progress in Advancing    progress and issues to DOD leadership and the Congress. These include
Joint Operations         periodic commanders-in-chief conferences, messages and reports to or


                         Page 43                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 3
Value of USACOM’s Contributions to Joint
Military Capabilities




discussions with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and testimony
before the Congress. Minutes were not kept of the commanders-in-chief
conferences, but we obtained Commander, USACOM, quarterly reports,
which are to focus on the Command’s key issues. Reports submitted to the
Secretary of Defense between May 1995 and April 1998 painted a positive
picture of USACOM’s progress, citing activities in areas such as joint training
exercises, theater missile defense, and advanced technology projects. The
reports also covered operational issues but included little discussion of
the Command’s problems in implementing its functional roles. For
example, none of the reports discussed the wide opposition to adaptive
joint force packaging or USACOM’s decision to change its approach, even
though the Secretary of Defense approved the implementation plan for its
functional roles, which included development of adaptive joint force
packages.

In congressional testimony in March 1997, the Commander of USACOM
(1995-97) discussed the Command’s annual accomplishments, plans for
the future, and areas of concern. The Commander noted that U.S. military
operations had evolved from specialized joint operations to a level
approaching synergistic joint operations.2 In 1998 testimony, the current
USACOM Commander reported continued progress, describing the military
as having reached “an unprecedented level of jointness.” USACOM’s ultimate
goal is to advance joint warfighting to a level it has defined as “coherent”
joint operations with all battle systems, communications systems, and
information databases fully interoperable and linked by common joint
doctrine. Figure 3.1 depicts the evolution from specialized and synergistic
joint operations to coherent joint operations.




2
 In specialized joint operations, such as those during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the military
services operate somewhat autonomously within distinct spheres to achieve a common objective. In
synergistic joint operations, such as those in Haiti in 1994, service capabilities are integrated without a
common doctrine across all aspects of joint operations. The lack of a common doctrine hampers full
integration of service capabilities.



Page 44                                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                                 Chapter 3
                                 Value of USACOM’s Contributions to Joint
                                 Military Capabilities




Figure 3.1: Evolution of Joint
Operations




                                                                          ons
                                                                       ati
                                                                    per
                                                               n t O
                                                            Joi                          Coherent
                                                                                         Service capabilities
                                                                  Synergistic            are fully
                                                                  Service                interoperable
                                                                  capabilities           and linked by
                                           Specialized                                   common
                                                                  are integrated
                                           Services                                      joint doctrine
                                                                  but hampered by
                                           autonomously           lack of common
                                           operate toward         doctrine
                                           a common
                                           objective


                                 Source: USACOM.



                                 At the conclusion of our review, USACOM was completing the development
Goals and Objectives             of a new strategic planning system to enhance its management of its major
Established, but                 focus areas and facilitate strategic planning within the USACOM staff. Goals,
Assessments of                   objectives, and subobjectives were defined in each of its major focus
                                 areas, and an automated internal process was being established to help the
Command’s Impact                 Command track actions being taken in each area. The goals and objectives
Not Planned                      were designed to support the Command’s overall mission to maximize U.S.
                                 military capability through joint training, force integration, and
                                 deployment of ready forces in support of worldwide operations. Table 3.1
                                 provides examples of goals, objectives, and subobjectives in the joint force
                                 trainer, provider, and integrator major focus areas.




                                 Page 45                                      GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                                   Chapter 3
                                   Value of USACOM’s Contributions to Joint
                                   Military Capabilities




Table 3.1: Examples of Goals,
Objectives, and Subobjectives in   Major focus area and goal              Objective                         Subobjective
USACOM Major Focus Areas           Joint force trainer                    Enhance fidelity and rigor of —Resolve schedule
                                   Sustain and improve a high             joint task force training to   conflicts between
                                   quality joint task force               provide supported              USACOM’s joint task
                                   training program to produce            commands with flexible         force training and
                                   trained joint commanders               high-quality training that     training provided by
                                   and staff.a                            reduces staff tempos.a         others.
                                                                                                        —Design multiechelon
                                                                                                         exercises to meet the
                                                                                                         multiple training needs
                                                                                                         of geographic
                                                                                                         commands, joint task
                                                                                                         forces, and USACOM’s
                                                                                                         service components.
                                   Joint force provider                   Identify and select               —Balance tempos among
                                   Provide combat-ready joint             combat-ready forces.b              service components with
                                   forces to meet worldwide                                                  Global Military Force
                                   requirements.b                                                            Policy and geographic
                                                                                                             command requirements.
                                                                                                            —Develop a database to
                                                                                                             track availability of
                                                                                                             deploying forces.
                                   Joint force integrator                 Monitor and assess                —Develop concepts,
                                   Develop joint, combined, and           USACOM joint integration           influence doctrine, and
                                   interagency capabilities to            initiatives that promote           identify requirements at
                                   improve interoperability and           interoperability and               the geographic command
                                   enhance current operational            enhance near-term joint            level for providing
                                   capabilities.c                         military operations.c              trained theater air and
                                                                                                             missile defense forces
                                                                                                             that are integrated
                                                                                                             for joint operations.
                                                                                                            —Develop fully
                                                                                                             interoperable technology
                                                                                                             to improve target
                                                                                                             identification and combat
                                                                                                             effectiveness of joint
                                                                                                             forces and to reduce
                                                                                                             fratricide.
                                   a
                                   One of five trainer goals with one of four objectives supporting this goal.
                                   b
                                       One of three force provider goals with one of three objectives supporting this goal.
                                   c
                                   One of three integrator goals with one of three objectives supporting this goal.

                                   Source: USACOM.



                                   The goals and the objectives and subobjectives necessary to achieve the
                                   goals are established by officials in each major focus area. The objectives
                                   and subobjectives are to be understandable, relevant, attainable, and
                                   measurable. Progress in achieving the subobjectives becomes the



                                   Page 46                                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                      Chapter 3
                      Value of USACOM’s Contributions to Joint
                      Military Capabilities




                      measures for the objective’s success, and progress on objectives is the
                      measure of success in achieving a goal. The relative importance of each
                      objective and subobjective is reflected in weights or values assigned to
                      each and is used to measure progress. Objective and subjective
                      assessments of progress are to be routinely made and reported. Command
                      officials expect that in some areas progress will not be easy to measure
                      and will require subjective judgments.

                      USACOM  officials believed the Command’s new planning system, which
                      became operational on October 20, 1998, meets many of the expectations
                      of the Government Performance and Results Act, which requires agencies
                      to set goals, measure performance, and report on their accomplishments.
                      The Command believed that actions it plans to adopt in major focus areas
                      would ultimately improve the military capabilities of U.S. forces, the
                      mission of the Command. The officials, however, recognized that the
                      planning system does not include assessments or measures that can be
                      used to evaluate the Command’s impact on military capabilities. Under the
                      Results Act, agencies’ performance plans are to include performance goals
                      and measures to help assess whether the agency is successful in
                      accomplishing its general goals and missions. The Congress anticipated
                      that the Results Act principles would be institutionalized and practiced at
                      all organizational levels of the federal government. Establishing such
                      performance measures could be difficult, but they could help USACOM
                      determine what it needs to do to improve its performance.

                      DOD  has begun to implement the Results Act at all organizational levels,
                      and the Secretary of Defense tasked subordinate organizations in 1998 to
                      align their programs with DOD program goals established under the act.
                      Recognizing that the development of qualitative and quantitative
                      performance measures to assess mission accomplishment has been slow,
                      USACOM has provided training to its military officers on performance
                      objectives. USACOM officials said that while the Command has begun to
                      take steps to implement the principles of the Act, they believed the
                      Command needs additional implementation guidance from the Office of
                      the Secretary of Defense.


                      In the absence of specific assessments of USACOM’s impact on joint
Views Regarding the   operations, we asked representatives from the Joint Staff, USACOM and its
Value of USACOM’s     service component commands, and supported geographic commands for
Contributions         their views on USACOM’s value and contributions in advancing DOD’s joint
                      military capabilities. Opinions varied by command and functional role and



                      Page 47                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                         Chapter 3
                         Value of USACOM’s Contributions to Joint
                         Military Capabilities




                         ranged from USACOM having little or no impact to being a great contributor
                         and having a vital role. Generally speaking, Joint Staff officials considered
                         USACOM to be of great value and performing an essential function while
                         views among the geographic commands were more reserved.


Joint Force Training     USACOM  and its service components believed the Command’s joint task
Viewed as Positive but   force headquarters training was among the best joint training available.
Only Recently Used by    This training has allowed USACOM components’ three-star commanders and
                         their senior staffs to be trained without fielding thousands of troops and to
Some Commands            concentrate on joint tasks considered essential to accomplishing a mission
                         anywhere in the world. The Commander of USACOM cited this training as
                         the best example of USACOM’s success in affecting joint operations. He told
                         us that USACOM has secured the funding it needs to do this training and has
                         developed what he described as a “world-class” joint training program.

                         Representatives of the geographic commands we visited believed USACOM’s
                         joint task force commander training has provided good joint experience to
                         CONUS-based forces. They believed this training has enabled participants to
                         perform more effectively as members of a joint task force staff. While
                         these commands spoke well of the training, they have been slow to avail
                         themselves of it and could not attribute any improvement in joint tasks
                         force operations to it. The commands have not taken advantage of this
                         training for several reasons. First, other geographic commands considered
                         providing headquarters’ staff joint task force commander training their
                         responsibility and were reluctant to turn to USACOM for assistance. Second,
                         USACOM’s joint task force commander training is conducted at the
                         Command’s Joint Training Analysis and Simulation Center in Suffolk,
                         Virginia. Thus, geographic commands would have to make a significant
                         investment to deploy several hundred headquarters staff for up to 18 days
                         to complete the three phases of USACOM’s training. Third, the commands
                         are not confident that the training at the Center provides a true picture of
                         the way they would conduct an operation. That is, the scenarios USACOM
                         uses may have limited application in the other geographic commands’
                         regional areas of operational responsibility. The commands have,
                         therefore, preferred to train their own forces, with assistance from the
                         Joint Warfighting Center. Representatives from this Center have gone to
                         the commands and assisted them with their training at no cost to the
                         command. In October 1998, the Center was assigned to USACOM. USACOM
                         officials believed this would enhance the training support provided by the
                         Command to geographic commands (see ch. 4).




                         Page 48                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                       Chapter 3
                       Value of USACOM’s Contributions to Joint
                       Military Capabilities




                       Indications are that the geographic commands are beginning to more fully
                       use USACOM as a training support organization. According to the
                       Commander of USACOM, the current generation of commanders of the
                       geographic commands have been more receptive of USACOM support than
                       their predecessors. Also, as USACOM adjusts its training to make it more
                       relevant to other geographic commanders, the commands are requesting
                       USACOM’s support. In 1998, USACOM sent mobile training teams to the U.S.
                       Central Command in support of an operation in Kuwait. The Command
                       was also supporting the U.S. European Command in one of its major
                       training exercises. U.S. Southern Command has requested support from
                       USACOM for one of its major Caribbean joint exercises and asked the
                       Command to schedule the training exercise for the next 3 years.

                       Regarding interoperability training, USACOM’s component commands
                       believed the Command should be more involved in planning and executing
                       training exercises. Most of this training was existing service exercises
                       selected to be used as joint interoperability training. Some service
                       component officials believed that without sufficient USACOM influence, the
                       sponsoring services would be inclined to make these exercises too
                       service-specific or self-serving. For example, the Navy’s annual joint task
                       force exercise has basically been a preparation for a carrier battle group to
                       make its next deployment. The Air Force has participated, but Air Combat
                       Command officials told us they did not believe they gained much joint
                       training experience from the exercise. USACOM officials recognize that the
                       Command has not given interoperability training the same level of
                       emphasis as its joint task force training. They believed, however, that
                       components’ use of the recently developed universal joint interoperability
                       tasks list in planning this training would result in more joint orientation to
                       the training.


USACOM Adds Value as   As the major joint force provider, USACOM was valued by the Joint Staff,
Joint Force Provider   other geographic commands, and its service component commands. The
                       Joint Staff believed that USACOM, as a single joint command assigned the
                       majority of the four services’ forces, has provided a more efficient way of
                       obtaining forces to meet the mission needs of the other geographic
                       commands. Prior to establishing USACOM, the Joint Staff dealt individually
                       with each of the services to obtain the necessary forces. Now, the Joint
                       Staff can go to USACOM, which can coordinate with its service component
                       commands to identify available forces with the needed capabilities and
                       recommend force options. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
                       (1993-97) told us that forces have never been provided as efficiently as



                       Page 49                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 3
Value of USACOM’s Contributions to Joint
Military Capabilities




USACOM  has done it and that forces were better trained and equipped when
they arrived where needed.

The geographic commands we visited that USACOM primarily supports
viewed the Command as a dependable and reliable force provider. The
U.S. Central Command stated that forces provided by USACOM have been
well trained and have met the Command’s needs. The Command described
USACOM forces as having performed exceptionally well in Operation Desert
Thunder, in response to Iraq’s denial of access to its facilities to U.N.
weapon inspectors in February 1998. The Command also stated that
USACOM could provide forces more tailored to fighting in its area of
responsibility than the U.S. European or Pacific Commands because
USACOM forces have routinely deployed for exercises and missions in
support of ongoing operations in their area. Similarly, U.S. European
Command officials said that USACOM has been responsive to their
Command’s force needs and was doing a good job as a force provider. The
U.S. European Command also noted that USACOM has ensured equitable
tasking among CONUS-based forces and has allowed the European
Command to focus on the operation at hand. The U.S. Southern Command,
with few forces of its own, believed that the withdrawal of U.S. forces
from Panama throughout 1999 would make the Southern Command more
dependent on USACOM for forces to support its exercise and operations
requirements.

In discussing its contributions as a major provider of forces, USACOM
believed that it adds value by providing the Joint Staff with informed force
selection inputs based on all capable forces available from across its
service components. For example, the European Command requested that
an Air Force engineering unit build a bridge in 1997. USACOM identified a
Navy Seabees unit already deployed in Spain as an option. The European
Command agreed to use this unit. USACOM believed that it has supported
other geographic commands by providing well-trained forces and alerting
them of any potential training needs when forces are deployed.

USACOM  and its service component commands viewed the Command as an
“honest broker” that has drawn upon the capabilities of all the services, as
necessary, to meet the mission requirements of the geographic commands.
As pointed out by USACOM’s Commander, while USACOM has not been
involved in all deployment decisions concerning its assigned forces—such
as the Navy’s carrier battle groups or large Army units—and was not in a
position to deny an available force to a supported command, the




Page 50                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                             Chapter 3
                             Value of USACOM’s Contributions to Joint
                             Military Capabilities




                             Command has served as a clearinghouse for high-demand forces. For
                             example:

                         •   USACOM   had provided optometrists for its mobile training teams deployed
                             to Africa to train Africans for peacekeeping activities. Optometrists were
                             needed to diagnose eye problems of African troops, who experienced
                             difficulties seeing with night optical equipment. The Forces Command was
                             unable to provide the needed personnel beyond the first deployment, so
                             USACOM tasked its Atlantic Fleet component to provide personnel for the
                             redeployment.
                         •   In May 1997, an aerostat (radar balloon) that provided coverage in the
                             Florida straits went down. USACOM tasked the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet to
                             provide radar coverage every weekend with an E-2C aircraft squadron.
                             When the balloon was not replaced as expected and the requirement
                             continued, the Atlantic Fleet asked for relief from USACOM. USACOM
                             adjudicated resources with the Air Combat Command so that the Air
                             Forces’s E-3 aircraft would provide coverage for half of the time.

                             USACOM’s service component commands also saw the benefit in having a
                             single unified command act as an arbitrator among themselves. USACOM
                             can arbitrate differences between two of its component commands that
                             can provide the same capability. It can provide rationale as to why one
                             should or should not be tasked to fill a particular requirement and make a
                             decision based on such things as prior tasking and operating and
                             personnel tempos. Its components also saw USACOM as their representative
                             on issues with DOD and other organizations. In representing its
                             components, for example, USACOM handled politically sensitive
                             arrangements over several months with a U.S. embassy, through the State
                             Department, to provide military support to a foreign government for a
                             counterdrug operation conducted between July 1997 and February 1998.
                             USACOM’s involvement allowed its Air Force component, the Air Combat
                             Command, to limit its involvement in the arrangements and concentrate
                             on sourcing the assets and arranging logistics for the operation.


Joint Force Integrator       The Commander of USACOM told us he considered joint force integration to
Value May Lie in             be the Command’s most important functional role. He believed that over
Longer-Term Benefits         the next 2 years the Command’s integration efforts would gain more
                             recognition for enhancing joint operational capabilities than its efforts in
                             joint training. He said the Command was beginning to gain access to
                             critical “levers of progress,” such as the Joint Requirements Oversight
                             Council, which would enhance its influence. He cited the Command’s



                             Page 51                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 3
Value of USACOM’s Contributions to Joint
Military Capabilities




development—in collaboration with other geographic commands—of a
theater ballistic missile defense capstone requirements document and its
August 1998 approval by the Council as a demonstration of the
Command’s growing influence and impact. This document is to guide
doctrine development and the acquisition programs for this joint mission.
While approval was a very significant step for jointness, it raised important
questions, including who will pay for joint requirements in service
acquisition programs. The services have opposed USACOM’s role and
methodology in developing joint requirements and did not believe they
should be responsible for funding costs associated with the joint
requirements.

The USACOM Commander believed the Command has made considerable
progress in developing the process by which joint force integration is
accomplished. He cited the Command’s advanced concept technology
demonstration projects that have a joint emphasis as one of its primary
means of enhancing force integration. He said, for example, that the
Command’s high-altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle project
should soon provide aerial vehicles that give warfighters near-real-time,
all-weather tactical radar and optical imagery.

Views and knowledge about USACOM’s integration role varied among the
geographic commands we visited. Few commands were knowledgeable of
USACOM’s efforts at integration but perceived them to be closely aligned
with the Command’s joint force trainer and provider functions. While
these commands were aware that USACOM had responded to some specific
opportunities (for example, theater ballistic missile defense) in its
integrator role, they described the Command’s involvement in refining
joint doctrine and improving systems interoperability as a responsibility
shared among the commands. A representative of the Joint Staff’s Director
for Operational Plans and Interoperability told us USACOM’s integrator role,
as originally defined, faded along with adaptive joint force packages. He
believed the Command’s staff had worked hard to redefine this role and
give it a meaningful purpose and considered the Command as adding value
and performing a vital mission in its redefined role.




Page 52                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 4

Command Still Being Assimilated and Roles
and Responsibilities Expanded

                      USACOM’s  evolving functional roles as joint force trainer, provider, and
                      integrator have not been fully embraced throughout DOD. Except for
                      USACOM’s joint force trainer role, its functional roles and responsibilities
                      have not been fully incorporated into DOD joint publications or fully
                      accepted or understood by other commands and the military services.
                      USACOM’s functional responsibilities are expanding with the recent
                      assignment of five additional joint staff activities, a new joint
                      experimentation role, and ownership of the joint deployment process.
                      USACOM’s Commander believes these will have a positive impact on its
                      existing functional roles.


                      Over time, the Joint Staff and USACOM have incorporated the Command’s
Joint Training Role   joint force trainer role into joint publications. These documents provide a
Has Been              common understanding among DOD organizations of USACOM’s role in the
Institutionalized     joint training of forces. USACOM’s training role is identified in the Chairman,
                      Joint Chiefs of Staff, joint training policy and discussed in detail in the
                      Chairman’s joint training manual and joint training master plan.

                      The Chairman’s joint training master plan makes USACOM responsible for
                      the joint training of assigned CONUS-based forces, preparing them to deploy
                      worldwide and participate as members of a joint task force. It also tasks
                      the Command to train joint task forces not trained by other geographic
                      commands. As defined in the joint training manual, USACOM develops the
                      list of common operational joint tasks, with assistance from the
                      geographic commands, the Joint Warfighting Center, and the Joint Staff.
                      These common tasks, which are used by USACOM to train CONUS-based
                      forces, have been adopted by the Chairman as a common standard for all
                      joint training.

                      To further clarify its training role, USACOM issued a joint training plan that
                      defines its role, responsibilities, and programs for the joint training of its
                      assigned forces. This plan also discusses the Command’s support to the
                      Chairman’s joint training program and other geographic commands’ joint
                      training. USACOM has also developed a joint task force headquarters master
                      training guide that has been disseminated to all geographic commands and
                      is used to develop training guides.


                      While USACOM’s force provider and integrator roles are described in broad
Other Functional      terms in the Unified Command Plan, these roles have not been
Roles Not Yet         incorporated into joint guidance and publications. This lack of inclusion
Institutionalized     could hinder a common understanding about these roles and what is


                      Page 53                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                        Chapter 4
                        Command Still Being Assimilated and Roles
                        and Responsibilities Expanded




                        expected from USACOM. For example, key joint guidance for planning and
                        executing military operations—the Joint Operational Planning and
                        Execution System—does not specifically discuss USACOM’s role as a force
                        provider even though the Command has the preponderance of U.S. forces.
                        The lack of inclusion in joint guidance and publications also may
                        contribute to other DOD units’ resistance or lack of support and hinder
                        sufficient discussion of these roles in military academic education
                        curriculums, which use only approved doctrine and publications for class
                        instruction.

                        Internally, USACOM’s provider role is generally defined in the Command’s
                        operations order and has recently been included as a major focus area.
                        However, USACOM has not issued a standard operating procedure for its
                        provider role. A standard operating procedure contains instructions
                        covering those features of operations that lend themselves to a definite or
                        standardized procedure without the loss of effectiveness. Such
                        instructions delineate for staffs and organizations how they are to carry
                        out their responsibilities. Not having them has caused some difficulties
                        and inefficiencies among the force provider staff, particularly newly
                        assigned staff. USACOM officials stated that they plan to create a standard
                        operating procedure but that the effort is an enormous task and has not
                        been started.

                        USACOM’s  integrator role is defined in the Command’s operations order and
                        included as a major focus area. The order notes that the training and
                        providing processes do much to achieve the role’s stated objective of
                        enhanced joint capabilities but that effectively incorporating new
                        technologies occurs primarily through the integration process. Steps in the
                        integration process include developing a concept for new systems,
                        formulating organizational structure, defining equipment requirements,
                        establishing training, and developing and educating leaders. The major
                        focus area for the integration role defines the role’s three objectives and
                        tasks within each to enhance joint force operations.


                        The Secretary of Defense continued to expand USACOM’s roles and
USACOM’s Roles and      responsibilities in 1998, assigning the Command several activities, the new
Responsibilities Have   role of joint experimentation, and ownership of the joint deployment
Been Further            process. These changes significantly expand the Command’s size and
                        responsibilities. Additional changes that will further expand the
Expanded                Command’s roles and responsibilities have been approved.




                        Page 54                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                                             Chapter 4
                                             Command Still Being Assimilated and Roles
                                             and Responsibilities Expanded




Chairman Activities                          Effective October 1998, five activities, formerly controlled by the
Transferred to USACOM                        Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and about 1,100 of their authorized
                                             personnel were transferred to USACOM. Table 4.1 identifies the activities
                                             and provides information on their location, missions, and fiscal year 1999
                                             budget request and authorized military and civilian positions.


Table 4.1: Missions and Authorizations for Five Activities Transferred to USACOM
                                                                                                                  Fiscal year 1999 budget
                                                                                                                  request and personnel
Activity                           Mission                                                                        authorizations
Joint Warfare Analysis Center,     Provide Joint Staff and geographic commands with targeting options             $75 million
Dahlgren, Virginia                 to carry out U.S. national security and military strategy during               384 positions
                                   peacetime, crisis, and war.
Joint Warfighting Center,          Assist the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, geographic                   $58.2 million
Fort Monroe, Virginia              commands, and military services in (1) preparing for joint and                 45 positions
                                   multinational operations through the conceptualization, development,
                                   and assessment of current and future joint doctrine and (2)
                                   accomplishing joint and multinational training exercises.
Joint Communications Support       Provide contingency and crisis communications to meet the                      $23.3 million
Element, MacDill Air Force Base,   operational support needs of the geographic commands, services,                415 positions
Florida                            defense agencies, and non-DOD agencies such as the State
                                   Department.
Joint C4ISRa Battle Center,        Provide geographic commands’ joint task forces with a joint command, $18.2 million
Suffolk, Virginia                  control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and  45 positions
                                   reconnaissance assessment and experimentation capability.
Joint Command and Control          Provide the Joint Staff and geographic commanders expertise in     $16.7 million
Warfare Center, Kelly Air Force    planning and executing command and control warfare and information 166 positions
Base, Texas                        operations.
                                             a
                                              C4ISR: command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and
                                             reconnaissance.

                                             Source: USACOM.



                                             According to USACOM’s Commander, these activities will significantly
                                             enhance the Command’s joint training and integration efforts. Each of the
                                             transferred activities has unique capabilities that complement each other
                                             and current USACOM organizations and activities. For example, by
                                             combining the Joint Warfare Analysis Center’s analytical capabilities with
                                             USACOM’s cruise missile support activity, the Command could make great
                                             strides in improving the capability to attack targets with precision
                                             munitions. Also, having the Joint Warfighting Center work with USACOM’s
                                             Joint Training and Simulation Center is anticipated to improve the joint
                                             training program, enhance DOD modeling and simulation efforts, and help
                                             to develop joint doctrine and implement Joint Vision 2010. USACOM’s




                                             Page 55                                              GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                            Chapter 4
                            Command Still Being Assimilated and Roles
                            and Responsibilities Expanded




                            Commander also believed the Command’s control of these activities would
                            enhance its capability to analyze and develop solutions for interoperability
                            issues and add to its ability to be the catalyst for change it is intended to
                            be.

                            The transfer of the five activities was driven by the Secretary of Defense’s
                            1997 Defense Reform Initiative report, which examined approaches to
                            streamline DOD headquarters organizations.1 Transferring the activities to
                            the field is expected to enable the Joint Staff to better focus on its policy,
                            direction, and oversight responsibilities. The Chairman also expects the
                            transfer will improve joint warfighting and training by strengthening
                            USACOM’s role and capabilities for joint functional training support, joint
                            warfighting support, joint doctrine, and Joint Vision 2010 development.
                            USACOM plans to provide a single source for joint training and warfighting
                            support for the warfighter, with a strong role in lessons learned, modeling
                            and simulation, doctrine, and joint force capability experimentation.

                            USACOM   has developed an implementation plan and coordinated it with the
                            Joint Staff, the leadership of the activities, other commands, and the
                            military services. The intent is to integrate these activities into the
                            Command’s joint force trainer, provider, and integrator responsibilities.
                            Little organizational change is anticipated in the near term, with the same
                            level and quality of support by the activities provided to the geographic
                            commands. The Joint Warfighting Center and USACOM’s joint training
                            directorate will merge to achieve a totally integrated joint training team to
                            support joint and multinational training and exercises. Under the plan,
                            USACOM also expects to develop the foundation for “one stop shopping”
                            support for geographic commanders both before and during operations.


USACOM Designated           In May 1998, the Secretary of Defense expanded USACOM’s responsibilities
Executive Agent for Joint   by designating it executive agent for joint concept development and
Concept Development and     experimentation, effective October 1998. The charter directs USACOM to
                            develop and implement an aggressive program of experimentation to
Experimentation             foster innovation and the rapid fielding of new concepts and capabilities
                            for joint operations and to evolve the military force through the “prepare
                            now” strategy for the future. Joint experimentation is intended to facilitate
                            the development of new joint doctrine, organizations, training and
                            education, material, leadership, and people to ensure that the U.S. armed
                            forces can meet future challenges across the full range of military
                            operations.

                            1
                             Defense Reform Initiative Report, Secretary of Defense, November 1997.



                            Page 56                                                GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                     Chapter 4
                     Command Still Being Assimilated and Roles
                     and Responsibilities Expanded




                     The implementation plan for this new role provides estimates of the
                     resources required for the joint experimentation program; defines the
                     experimentation process; and describes how the program relates to,
                     supports, and leverages the activities of the other components of the Joint
                     Vision 2010 implementation process. The plan builds upon and mutually
                     supports existing and future experimentation programs of the military
                     services, the other unified commands, and the various defense research
                     and development agencies. The plan was submitted to the Chairman of the
                     Joint Chiefs of Staff in July 1998, with a staffing estimate of 127 additional
                     personnel by September 1999, increasing to 171 by September 2000. In
                     November 1998, USACOM had about 27 of these people assigned and
                     projected it would have 151 assigned by October 2000.

                     USACOM  worked closely with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the
                     Joint Staff to establish the initial funding required to create the joint
                     experimentation organization. USACOM requested about $41 million in fiscal
                     year 1999, increasing to $80 million by 2002. Of the $41 million, $30 million
                     was approved: $14.1 million was being redirected from two existing joint
                     warfighting programs, and $15.9 million was being drawn from sources to
                     be identified by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
                     (Comptroller).

                     The Secretary of Defense says DOD is committed to an aggressive program
                     of experimentation to foster innovation and rapid fielding of new joint
                     concepts and capabilities. Support by the Secretary and the Chairman of
                     the Joint Chiefs of Staff is considered essential, particularly in areas where
                     USACOM is unable to gain the support of the military services who
                     questioned the size and cost of USACOM’s proposed experimentation
                     program. Providing USACOM the resources to successfully implement the
                     joint experimentation program will be an indicator of DOD’s commitment
                     to this endeavor. The Congress has expressed its strong support for joint
                     warfighting experimentation. In the National Defense Authorization Act
                     for Fiscal Year 1999 (P.L. 105-261), it was stated that it was the sense of
                     the Congress that the Commander of USACOM should be provided
                     appropriate and sufficient resources for joint warfighting experimentation
                     and the appropriate authority to execute assigned responsibilities. We plan
                     to issue a report on the status of joint experimentation in March 1999.


USACOM Assigned      In October 1998, the Secretary of Defense, acting on a recommendation of
Ownership of Joint   the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made USACOM owner of the joint
Deployment Process   deployment process. As process owner, USACOM is responsible for



                     Page 57                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                     Chapter 4
                     Command Still Being Assimilated and Roles
                     and Responsibilities Expanded




                     maintaining the effectiveness of the process while leading actions to
                     substantially improve the overall efficiency of deployment-related
                     activities. The Joint Staff is to provide USACOM policy guidance, and the
                     U.S. Transportation Command is to provide transportation expertise.
                     USACOM was developing a charter to be coordinated with other DOD
                     components, and provide the basis for a DOD directive. The deployment
                     process would include activities from the time forces and material are
                     selected to be deployed to the time they arrive where needed and then are
                     returned to their home station or place of origin.

                     According to the Secretary of Defense, USACOM’s responsibilities as joint
                     trainer, force provider, and joint force integrator of the bulk of the nation’s
                     combat forces form a solid foundation for USACOM to meet joint
                     deployment process challenges. The Secretary envisioned USACOM as a
                     focal point to manage collaborative efforts to integrate mission-ready
                     deploying forces into the supported geographic command’s joint operation
                     area. USACOM officials considered this new responsibility to be a significant
                     expansion of the Command’s joint force provider role. They believed that
                     in their efforts to make the deployment process more efficient there would
                     be opportunities to improve the efficiency of its provider role. As
                     executive agent of the Secretary of Defense for the joint deployment
                     process, USACOM’s authority to direct DOD components and activities to
                     make changes to the deployment process has yet to be defined. A Joint
                     Staff official recognized this as a possible point of contention, particularly
                     among the services, as the draft charter was being prepared for
                     distribution for comment in February 1999.


Additional Changes   In October 1998, the Deputy Secretary of Defense approved the
Approved             realignment or restructuring of several additional joint activities affecting
                     USACOM. These include giving USACOM representation in the joint test and
                     evaluation program; transferring the services’ combat identification
                     activities to USACOM; and assigning a new joint personnel recovery agency
                     to USACOM. USACOM and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff believed
                     these actions strengthened USACOM’s joint force trainer and integrator roles
                     as well as its emerging responsibilities for joint doctrine, warfighting
                     concepts, and joint experimentation. USACOM representation on the joint
                     test and evaluation program, which was to be effective by January 1999,
                     provides joint representation on the senior advisory council, planning
                     committee, and technical board for test and evaluation. Command and
                     control of service combat identification programs and activities provide
                     joint evaluation of friend or foe identification capabilities. The newly



                     Page 58                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 4
Command Still Being Assimilated and Roles
and Responsibilities Expanded




formed joint personnel recovery agency provides DOD personnel recovery
support by combining the joint services survival, evasion, resistance, and
escape agency with the combat search and rescue agency. USACOM is to
assume these responsibilities in October 1999.




Page 59                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Chapter 5

Conclusions and Recommendations


              Retaining the effectiveness of America’s military when budgets are
Conclusions   generally flat and readiness and modernization are costly requires a fuller
              integration of the capabilities of the military services. As the premier
              trainer, provider, and integrator of CONUS-based forces, USACOM has a
              particularly vital role if the U.S. military is to achieve new levels of
              effectiveness in joint warfighting.

              USACOM was established to be a catalyst for the transformation of DOD from
              a military service-oriented to a joint-oriented organization. But change is
              difficult and threatening and it does not come easy, particularly in an
              organization with the history and tradition of DOD. This is reflected in the
              opposition to USACOM from the military services, which provide and equip
              the Command with its forces and maintain close ties to USACOM’s service
              component commands, and from geographic commands it supports. As a
              result of this resistance, USACOM changed its roles as an integrator and
              provider of forces and sought new opportunities to effect change.
              Indications are that the current geographic commanders may be more
              supportive of USACOM than past commanders have been, as evidenced by
              their recent receptivity to USACOM’s support in development and refinement
              of their joint training programs. Such support is likely to become
              increasingly important to the success of USACOM. During its initial years the
              Command made its greatest accomplishments in areas where there was
              little resistance to its role. The Commander of USACOM said that the
              Command would increasingly enter areas where others have a vested
              interest and that he would therefore expect the Command to encounter
              resistance from the military services and others in the future as it pursues
              actions to enhance joint military capabilities.

              While USACOM has taken actions to enhance joint training, to meet the force
              requirements of supported commands, and to improve the interoperability
              of systems and equipment, the value of its contributions to improved joint
              military capabilities are not clearly discernable. If the Command develops
              performance goals and measures consistent with the Results Act, it could
              assess and report on its performance in accomplishing its mission of
              maximizing military capabilities. The Command may need guidance from
              the Secretary of Defense in the development of these goals and measures.

              In addition to its evolving roles as joint force trainer, provider, and
              integrator, USACOM is now taking on important new, related
              responsibilities, including the management of five key joint activities. With
              the exception of training, these roles and responsibilities, both old and
              new, are largely undefined in DOD directives, instructions, and other policy



              Page 60                                   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                  Chapter 5
                  Conclusions and Recommendations




                  documents, including joint doctrine and guidance. The Unified Command
                  Plan, a classified document that serves as the charter for USACOM and the
                  other unified commands, briefly identifies USACOM’s functional roles but
                  does not define them in any detail. This absence of a clear delineation of
                  the Command’s roles, authorities, and responsibilities could contribute to
                  a lack of universal understanding and acceptance of USACOM and impede
                  the Command’s efforts to enhance the joint operational capabilities of the
                  armed forces.

                  While USACOM was established in 1993 by the Secretary of Defense with the
                  open and strong leadership, endorsement, and support of the Chairman of
                  the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, the Command has not
                  always received the same strong visible support. Without such support,
                  USACOM’s efforts to bring about change could be throttled by other, more
                  established and influential DOD elements with priorities that can compete
                  with those of USACOM. Indications are that the current DOD leadership is
                  prepared to support USACOM when it can demonstrate a compelling need
                  for change. The adoption of the USACOM-developed theater ballistic missile
                  defense capstone requirements document indicates that this rapidly
                  evolving command may be gaining influence and support as the Secretary
                  of Defense’s and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s major advocate for
                  jointness within the Department of Defense.


                  It is important that USACOM be able to evaluate its performance and impact
Recommendations   in maximizing joint military capabilities. Such assessments, while very
                  difficult to make, could help the Command better determine what it needs
                  to do to enhance its performance. We, therefore, recommend that the
                  Secretary of Defense direct the Commander in Chief of USACOM to adopt
                  performance goals and measures that will enable the Command to assess
                  its performance in accomplishing its mission of maximizing joint military
                  capabilities.

                  Additionally, as USACOM attempts to advance the evolution of joint military
                  capabilities and its role continues to expand, it is important that the
                  Command’s roles and responsibilities be clearly defined, understood, and
                  supported throughout DOD. Only USACOM’s roles and responsibilities in joint
                  training have been so defined in DOD policy and guidance documents.
                  Therefore, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense fully incorporate
                  USACOM’s functional roles, authorities, and responsibilities in appropriate
                  DOD directives and publications, including joint doctrine and guidance.




                  Page 61                                  GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                     Chapter 5
                     Conclusions and Recommendations




                     In written comments (see app. VII) on a draft of this report, DOD concurred
Agency Comments      with the recommendations. In its comments DOD provided additional
and Our Evaluation   information on USACOM’s efforts to establish performance goals and
                     objectives and DOD’s efforts to incorporate USACOM’s functional roles,
                     authorities, and responsibilities in appropriate DOD directives and
                     publications. DOD noted that as part of USACOM’s efforts to establish
                     performance goals and objectives, the Command has provided training on
                     performance measures to its military officers.

                     Regarding our recommendation to incorporate USACOM’s functional roles,
                     authorities, and responsibilities in appropriate DOD directives and
                     publications, DOD said the 1999 Unified Command Plan, which is currently
                     under its cyclic review process, will further define USACOM’s functional
                     roles as they have evolved over the past 2 years. It also noted that key
                     training documents have been, or are being, updated. We believe that in
                     addition to the Unified Command Plan and joint training documents, the
                     joint guidance for planning and executing military operations—the Joint
                     Operational Planning and Execution System process—should discuss
                     USACOM’s role as the major provider of forces.




                     Page 62                                  GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Page 63   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix I

U.S. Atlantic Command Organization


              The U.S. Atlantic Command (USACOM) was established on October 1, 1993,
              as one of nine unified commands and is located at Norfolk, Virginia. As
              shown in figure I.1, the Commander in Chief (Commander) of USACOM also
              serves as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Supreme Allied
              Commander, Atlantic. The Command has four service component
              commands—the Navy’s Atlantic Fleet and U.S. Marine Corps Forces
              Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia; the Air Force’s Air Combat Command, Langley
              Air Force Base, Virginia; and the Army’s Forces Command, Fort
              McPherson, Georgia. The component commands comprise service forces
              such as individuals, unit detachments, organizations, and installations
              assigned to USACOM, and they have primary responsibility for the mission
              readiness of those forces. Additionally, USACOM exercises command over
              three subordinate unified commands (comprised of USACOM forces from
              two or more services)—the Special Operations Command, Atlantic; the
              U.S. Forces Azores; and the Iceland Defense Force. The Command is also
              responsible for the counternarcotics Joint Task Force 6 in El Paso, Texas,
              and is the executive agent for the Joint Interagency Task Force East in Key
              West, Florida.




              Page 64                                  GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                                              Appendix I
                                              U.S. Atlantic Command Organization




Figure I.1: Organizational Structure of USACOM

                                  Commander     Supreme Allied
                                   USACOM        Commander
                                                Atlantic (NATO)




    Air Combat            Atlantic Fleet                     Forces             U.S. Marine
    Command                  (Navy)                         Command                Corps
    (Air Force)                                              (Army)            Forces Atlantic




      Special             U.S. Forces                    Iceland Defense
     Operations             Azores                            Force
     Command,
     USACOM




  Joint Interagency       Joint Task
  Task Force East          Force 6




      Service Component Command

       Subordinate Unified Command

       Joint Task Force
                                              Source: USACOM.




                                              Page 65                                            GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix II

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology


              In response to congressional interest in the Department of Defense’s (DOD)
              efforts to improve joint operations, we initiated our study to review the
              assimilation of USACOM into DOD as the major trainer, provider, and
              integrator of forces for worldwide deployment. More specifically, we
              determined (1) USACOM’s actions to establish itself as the joint force
              trainer, provider, and integrator of most continental U.S.-based forces;
              (2) views on the value of the Command’s contributions to joint military
              capabilities; and (3) recent expansion of the Command’s responsibilities
              and its possible effects on the Command. We focused on USACOM’s
              functional roles and did not examine the rationale for USACOM’s geographic
              and NATO responsibilities or the effect of these responsibilities on the
              execution of USACOM’s functional roles.

              During our review, we met with Admiral Harold W. Gehman, Jr.,
              Commander in Chief of USACOM, and other officials and staff from USACOM’s
              headquarters; with General John J. Sheehan, Commander of USACOM
              (1994-1997); and with officials and staff from the Office of the Secretary of
              Defense, the Joint Staff, the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the
              Air Force, and the Headquarters of the U.S. Marine Corps, Washington,
              D.C.; U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Marine Corps Forces Atlantic, and Armed Forces
              Staff College, Norfolk, Virginia; Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force
              Base, Virginia; Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia; U.S. European
              Command, Patch Barracks, Germany; U.S. Central Command, MacDill Air
              Force Base, Florida; U.S. Southern Command, Miami, Florida; and the
              Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania. Interviews with these
              officials were a primary source of information for our review.

              To understand the rationale and historical context for establishing USACOM,
              we reviewed official histories, posture statements and speeches,
              congressional hearings and testimonies, DOD studies and reports, and other
              relevant documents. We also met with General John Shalikashvili (U.S.
              Army retired), former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1993-97); and
              General Colin Powell (U.S. Army retired), former Chairman of the Joint
              Chiefs of Staff (1989-93), to obtain their unique insights and perspectives
              on the various events and decisions related to USACOM’s history and
              evolution as a command. Additionally, we met with officials of the Joint
              Staff historical office and with the USACOM command historian.

              To identify USACOM actions to establish and execute its functional roles, we
              examined documents and talked with USACOM officials associated with
              each role. We used USACOM’s implementation plan, approved by the
              Secretary of Defense, and the biennial Unified Command Plans as a



              Page 66                                   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix II
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




framework for establishing the authority, scope, and approach for
realizing USACOM’s functional roles.

For the joint force trainer role, we reviewed training plans, manuals, and
schedules related to USACOM’s joint training program. To understand the
approach and content of USACOM’s joint task force commander and staff
training, we attended several sessions of the Unified Endeavor 1998
exercise conducted at the Joint Training, Analysis and Simulation Center,
Suffolk, Virginia, and Camp LeJeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina.
We also reviewed data on past joint training efforts, including the training
content, participants, and approach, and on future joint training events.

For the joint force provider role, we examined documents and discussed
with USACOM officials the 1995 change in approach from the adaptive joint
force packaging concept to a process-oriented approach. We also obtained
documents and held discussions on past and ongoing operations to
determine USACOM’s involvement and effectiveness in providing forces. To
understand the implementation of the process, we correlated USACOM’s
involvement in these operations to that prescribed in the Command’s
process and discussed its involvement with service components and
geographic commands.

For the joint force integrator role, we reviewed documents and discussed
with USACOM officials the Command’s efforts in three major activities:
(1) USACOM-sponsored Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration
projects, (2) joint doctrine development, and (3) interoperability initiatives
to improve joint operations. We analyzed status reports and briefings to
ascertain USACOM’s level of effort and discussed with each service
component its involvement in USACOM’s efforts. At each unified command
we visited, we attempted to contrast its efforts in these three areas with
those of USACOM to identify any differences or unique aspects in USACOM’s
approach and contribution to joint integration.

To determine the extent that USACOM’s execution of its functional roles was
valued within DOD, we discussed the Command’s contributions with
officials at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, several
geographic commands, and USACOM and its service component commands.
To ascertain the extent that USACOM’s efforts were advancing joint
operations, we reviewed USACOM’s command plans, internal assessments,
performance tracking system results, and other relevant documents. We
talked with DOD officials at all visited locations to obtain their views and
examples of USACOM’s performance. We also discussed with USACOM



Page 67                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix II
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




officials their actions to implement the principles of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993.

To determine the extent that USACOM has been assimilated into the DOD
community, we reviewed joint doctrine, guidance, and publications for
references and descriptions of USACOM and its roles. During our visits to
component and geographic commands, we asked officials and staff to
describe and cite sources for their understanding of USACOM roles.
Additionally, we discussed with officials of the Army War College and
Armed Forces Staff College the degree to which USACOM and its roles were
covered in military academic curriculums.

To obtain a perspective on several approved changes for USACOM—such as
the transfer to USACOM of five joint centers/activities currently controlled
by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—we obtained documents and
discussed plans with DOD, Joint Staff, and USACOM officials.




Page 68                                   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix III

Training Categories



Category/type of
training            Description of training
1/Service           Training conducted by the military services, based on service policy and doctrine, to prepare individuals and
                    interoperable units. It includes basic, technical, operational, and component-sponsored interoperability
                    training in response to the geographic combatant commands’ operational requirements.
2/Component         Training based on joint doctrine or joint tactics, techniques, and procedures in which more than one service
interoperability    component participates. Normally includes commander in chief or service initiatives to improve
                    responsiveness of assigned forces to combatant commanders. The training is conducted by service
                    component commanders and its purpose is to ensure interoperability of forces and equipment between two or
                    more service components.
3/Joint             Training based on joint doctrine to prepare forces and/or joint staffs to respond to operational requirements
                    deemed necessary by combatant commanders to execute their assigned missions.
4/Multinational     Training based on allied, joint, and/or service doctrine to prepare units in response to National Command
interoperability    Authority-approved mandates. Purpose is to ensure interoperability of forces and equipment between U.S.
                    and other nations’ forces.
5/Joint and         Training based on multinational, joint, and/or service doctrine to prepare units in response to National
multinational       Command Authority-approved mandates. Purpose is to prepare joint forces under a multinational command
                    arrangement.
6/Interagency and   Training based on National Command Authority-derived standard operating procedures to prepare
intergovernmental   interagency and/or international decisionmakers and staffs in response to National Command
                    Authority-approved mandates.
                                         Source: Joint Training Manual for the Armed Forces of the United States, Chairman of the Joint
                                         Chiefs of Staff, June 1996.




                                         Page 69                                                GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix IV

Adaptive Joint Force Packaging Concept


                        The adaptive joint force packaging concept was conceived as a way to fill
Intention and Concept   the void created by reduced in-theater force capabilities following the end
                        of the Cold War. Under the concept, USACOM was to provide forces based in
                        the continental United States (CONUS) that are “highly skilled, rapidly
                        deliverable, and fully capable of operating effectively as a joint team on
                        arrival” to geographic commanders. The concept also provided an
                        approach for responding to a much broader range of conflicts and crises,
                        particularly the increasing number of nontraditional missions such as
                        peacekeeping and counterdrug operations. In his confirmation hearing to
                        be Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in February 1994, Vice
                        Admiral William A. Owens stated that “one of the concept’s strengths is
                        that it gives us a starting point from which to build the enhancements truly
                        joint warfare can bring to a force that is getting smaller, increasingly
                        becoming CONUS-based, and changing in many other significant ways.”

                        An “adaptive joint force package” was defined by USACOM’s implementation
                        plan as “a capabilities centered grouping of forces and headquarters
                        trained and organized to meet specific peacetime and crisis requirements
                        of the supported geographic commander.” Forces used to build these
                        packages were to include all USACOM active and reserve forces of each of
                        the services, the U.S. Coast Guard, and other CONUS-based forces and
                        assets made available by supporting geographic commanders and other
                        agencies. Under the concept, USACOM, in close coordination with
                        geographic commanders, was to identify and develop flexible force
                        package options for worldwide use to satisfy geographic commander
                        requirements. The packages could either be preplanned for specific
                        presence and contingency missions or developed as needed for an
                        unexpected crisis.

                        The adaptive joint force package concept was not new. The services have
                        used the concept to bring together different force elements when
                        organizing for combat. For example, Army commanders task and organize
                        combat arms, combat support, and combat service support resources to
                        conduct a specific mission and then change this organization to
                        accomplish subsequent missions within the same operations plan. This
                        allows them to achieve greater collective capability than the individual
                        pieces can accomplish on their own. Adaptive joint force packages
                        modifies the concept to the joint environment by allowing elements from
                        each of the services to be assembled to provide tailored joint capability
                        packages, structured and trained for a variety of requirements. Figure IV.1
                        shows how an adaptive joint force package can be tailored to provide the
                        precise capabilities needed for a given situation.



                        Page 70                                  GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                                            Appendix IV
                                            Adaptive Joint Force Packaging Concept




Figure IV.1: Tailoring Capabilities in an
Adaptive Joint Force Package
                                                Full Joint Force Package


                                                    Joint Command Element
                                                                                             Tailored Forward Element

                                                                                                    Joint Task Force
                                                                                                   Command Element
                                                       Naval Battle Group


                                                                                                   Naval Task Group


                                                Marine Expeditionary Brigade(s)
                                                                                                Marine Expeditionary Unit



                                                                                              Army Deployment for Training
                                                          Army Division


                                                                                                  Air Force Squadron(s)

                                                        Air Force Wing(s)
                                                                                                Special Operations Forces




                                                   Special Operations Forces



                                            Source: Joint Staff, Joint Chiefs of Staff.




                                            An important aspect of adaptive joint force packages was that USACOM was
                                            to assign a joint task force commander and headquarters staff to each
                                            package for training purposes. The supported geographic commanders
                                            were to use the designated commander and staff either in whole, in part,
                                            or not at all to augment the theater commander. No matter how these
                                            packages were deployed, the intent was to optimize joint training
                                            opportunities for the forces and their staffs in the packages.

                                            USACOM  initially focused its packaging efforts on satisfying geographic
                                            commands’ requirements for overseas presence. During late 1993 through
                                            early 1994, several types of maritime-oriented joint packages for overseas



                                            Page 71                                       GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                    Appendix IV
                    Adaptive Joint Force Packaging Concept




                    presence were designed and deployed. In September 1994, USACOM’s
                    Commander sought to demonstrate the practicality of using the concept
                    for contingency operations. For Operation Uphold Democracy, which was
                    intended to restore democracy in Haiti, USACOM assembled a joint force
                    package that placed Army helicopters on a Navy aircraft carrier and
                    moved command operations from the U.S.S. Mount Whitney command
                    ship to the beach. Special Operations Forces were embarked on the U.S.S.
                    America aircraft carrier for the assault phase of the operation, and units of
                    the Army’s 10th Mountain Division embarked on the U.S.S. Dwight D.
                    Eisenhower aircraft carrier were to enter Haiti following the phase. Due to
                    the success of negotiations, the assault was not necessary. USACOM officials
                    identified the Haiti operation as the only operation for which the concept
                    was used.


                    The adaptive joint force packaging concept, particularly the packaging
Demise of Concept   element, encountered much criticism and resistance from the geographic
                    commanders and the military services before and after USACOM’s creation.
                    During deliberations about creating the new command, the geographic
                    commanders and the services raised concerns about the mechanics,
                    responsibilities, and application of the concept. Perhaps the most
                    contentious issue among the geographic commanders was the level of
                    control USACOM would have in developing the final force package for the
                    supported geographic command. They believed the supported geographic
                    commander, not USACOM, was in the best position to determine which
                    forces were needed to meet the commander’s requirements.

                    The adaptive joint force packaging concept was a major element of
                    USACOM’s 1993 implementation plan, which was approved by the Secretary
                    of Defense. However, USACOM’s efforts to gain the cooperation and support
                    it needed from the supported geographic commands in developing
                    adaptive joint force packages received little support from the succeeding
                    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1993-97), General John Shalikashvili.
                    The Chairman saw limited utility for adaptive joint force packages,
                    particularly for the European and Pacific Commands, which had large
                    forces of their own. Additionally, the Chairman believed it would be very
                    difficult to develop and train force packages for future operations because
                    of the difficulty of forecasting the type of operations in which U.S. forces
                    would be engaged. According to Admiral Paul David Miller, the first
                    Commander of USACOM, a great deal of the “acceptance” problem among
                    the geographic commanders was related to their desire to control their
                    own forces, including having their own joint task force commanders.



                    Page 72                                   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix IV
Adaptive Joint Force Packaging Concept




Armed Forces Staff College officials and others also believe that USACOM
had a “salesmanship” problem—it was unable to clear up
misunderstandings about the concept.

By June 1994, USACOM had removed “adaptive” from the concept’s label
because it was viewed as a negative connotation. By spring 1995, USACOM
had decided to concentrate on developing joint force packages for less
contentious missions such as disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, and
noncombatant evacuation operations. By late 1995, USACOM’s Commander
decided to move away from providing a product—a joint force
package—and devote the Command’s efforts to increasing the efficiency
of the force providing process (see app. V) and to integrating joint forces
and improving their interoperability through technology, systems, and
doctrine initiatives. Although joint force training was important to the
success of the joint force packaging concept approach, the decision to
deviate from the concept did not have a notable effect on USACOM’s training
program.




Page 73                                  GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix V

USACOM’s Force Provider Process
Description of Process

                 After moving away from adaptive joint force packages in 1995, USACOM
                 designed its current force provider process to improve the efficiency and
                 timeliness of providing forces to supported geographic commands. The
                 process was derived from existing doctrine, specifically the publication
                 describing the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System.1 USACOM
                 continues to refine the process from established doctrinal guidance. The
                 process has five basic elements:

             •   accept the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff’s validation2 of the
                 supported geographic command requirement;
             •   identify the specific units that can fulfill the requirement;
             •   select, in close cooperation with the supported geographic command,
                 Joint Staff, and service component commands, those forces with the
                 required military capabilities and readiness status;
             •   train the selected forces to appropriate joint tasks, conditions, and
                 standards (common joint task and joint mission-essential task standards);
                 and
             •   deploy the forces to the supported geographic command.

                 The process begins with a geographic command’s need for forces to
                 accomplish a particular peacetime, contingency, or crisis mission in its
                 area of responsibility.3 This force requirement generally originates with
                 one of the geographic command’s service component commands. The
                 geographic command sends the force requirement request to the Chairman
                 of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Chairman, through the Joint Staff,
                 validates the requirement, which entails checking the reasonableness of
                 the requirement and the ability to fill the request against other competing
                 worldwide military requirements. Once validated, the Joint Staff asks the
                 requesting geographic command to first attempt to meet the requirement
                 with its own forces or forces deployed in its area of responsibility. If the
                 geographic command is unable to meet the requirement, the Joint Staff
                 will task another command to provide the necessary forces.

                 If USACOM is tasked by the Joint Staff to meet the force requirement,4 its
                 headquarters’ staff determine which of its service component commands


                 1
                   Joint Operation Planning and Execution System, Volume I (Planning Policies and Procedures), Joint
                 Publication 5-03.1, August 4, 1993.
                 2
                  Validation means the Secretary of Defense’s authorization, upon recommendation of the Chairman of
                 the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to deploy a force in support of a specific operation.
                 3
                  The geographical area within which a commander has authority to plan and conduct operations.
                 4
                  A USACOM official stated that the Command receives an average of one request for forces each day.



                 Page 74                                                GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix V
USACOM’s Force Provider Process
Description of Process




is likely to be able to provide the necessary forces. The service component
commands identify the specific units that can fulfill the requirement. In
collaboration with the service component commands, the Joint Staff, and
the supported geographic command, USACOM selects the force that has the
required capabilities and readiness status. When the approved deployment
or execution order is sent from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
USACOM directs the responsible service component command to transfer or
deploy the specified forces to the supported geographic command. USACOM
officials indicated that this process is not linear—several parts of the
process take place concurrently.

This process requires a significant amount of coordination—both formal
and informal—among the staffs at USACOM headquarters, the Joint Staff,
supported geographic command, and service component commands.
USACOM and service component command officials stated that there are
numerous informal contacts between them and their counterparts at the
Joint Staff and other geographic commands from the time the requirement
is being developed to the time forces are deployed. USACOM and service
component officials also told us that this informal coordination, or parallel
planning, accelerates the process by allowing for early consideration of
force options, resolution of potential readiness issues, identification of
training requirements, and advance warning of force needs from the
geographic commands. USACOM officials noted that force requirements are
generally met because the close coordination allows requirements to be
refined so they can be met. However, a USACOM Operations Directorate
official stated that while the informal discussions can help to solve
problems early, it is frustrating if decisions are made without USACOM
involvement or without explanation.

Response time is an important aspect in USACOM’s process. In some cases,
the requirement is known months before when the forces need to be
deployed. In other situations, such as a need to safely and quickly remove
threatened civilians from an area outside the United States, the required
response time may be a matter of hours or days. Such constraints can limit
the force options considered, depending on the availability and readiness
of certain forces to deploy.




Page 75                                   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                      Appendix V
                      USACOM’s Force Provider Process
                      Description of Process




                      USACOM  headquarters acts largely as an overseer in the provider process to
Role of USACOM and    review and coordinate deployment taskings, clarify and define what type
Its Service           of force is needed, and ensure that forces are deployed where and when
Components in the     needed to meet the requirements of the geographic commands.
                      Specifically, the Command’s role is to (1) issue deployment taskings from
Process               the Secretary of Defense to its service component commands as
                      appropriate, (2) receive and process critical force and deployment
                      information from its service component commands, (3) coordinate the
                      resolution of conflicts between the Joint Staff and the supported
                      geographic commanders, (4) coordinate with service component
                      commands regarding the activation of reservists, (5) coordinate with
                      service components and the Joint Staff for the deployment of unassigned
                      forces or forces assigned to other commands, and (6) coordinate the
                      deployment of individual personnel to augment units already deployed.

                      USACOM’s   four service component commands play an important part in the
                      provider process. USACOM headquarters has a staff of about 10 dedicated to
                      its joint force provider role, which is far less than the large, robust
                      organization it had for developing adaptive joint force packages. While
                      other headquarters divisions provide significant support, the staff relies on
                      the larger staffs of the service component commands to do the bulk of the
                      work. When the Joint Staff tasks USACOM to provide forces to satisfy a
                      requirement, USACOM headquarters relies on its service component
                      commands for expertise and assistance to identify and select the force.
                      Because service component commanders have primary responsibility for
                      the mission readiness of USACOM forces, they have the best information on
                      the readiness status of their forces and better knowledge of the forces’
                      capabilities than do the USACOM headquarters staff. A USACOM official stated
                      that the service component commands are the force providers. USACOM is
                      the conduit between the service component commands and the supported
                      geographic commands and provides a filter in both directions.


                      Under USACOM’s force provider process, supported geographic
Requirements to Be    commanders are to identify the capabilities needed to accomplish an
Identified as         assigned mission in terms of the essential tasks to be performed, the
Capabilities Needed   conditions under which these tasks are performed, and the standards to
                      which these tasks must be performed. They are discouraged from
                      identifying a specific asset or service. The required capability does not
                      describe the means (forces) to fulfill the requirement, however. For
                      example, if an air defense capability is needed, USACOM could identify an




                      Page 76                                   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix V
USACOM’s Force Provider Process
Description of Process




Army Patriot missile battery, Marine Corps F/A-18 aircraft, a Navy AEGIS
ship, Air Force F-15 aircraft, or other services’ assets.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff developed and approved a
common language, the Universal Joint Task List, by which geographic
commanders can communicate their joint military requirements. The
Universal Joint Task List includes tasks, conditions, and measures used to
create common task and joint mission-essential task lists that describe the
functional capabilities joint force commanders may require to execute
their assigned missions. As noted in chapter 2, USACOM uses these tasks,
identified with the other geographic commands, to conduct and monitor
its joint training program.

According to USACOM, requesting forces by required capabilities provides
USACOM   some flexibility in selecting assets and units from across the
services and allows for better management of the forces’ operating and
personnel tempos. By concentrating on required capabilities rather than
traditional relationships with specific units, the same units and forces will
not be routinely identified for all missions. For example, a geographic
commander preparing for a possible evacuation of noncombatant civilians
from his area of responsibility might request deployment of a specific
force, such as a Marine Corps amphibious ready group. However, USACOM
has greater flexibility in the selection of forces if the requirement is
defined in terms of a joint mission-essential task—“Conduct Evacuation of
Noncombatants from Theater of Operation”—and then further refined by
the supported geographic commander to establish the conditions and
standards specific to the current situation. USACOM would work with the
various organizations—the supported geographic command, the Joint
Staff, other supporting geographic commands, and USACOM’s service
component commands—to identify other possible force options, such as a
light infantry, special operations, or tailored amphibious force. However,
the supported geographic commander decides which option provides the
best capability to meet the mission.

USACOM   officials told us that if a specific force or service is requested, the
force is generally deployed if it is available. Additionally, various DOD
officials indicated that while requesting forces by capabilities is desired,
the supported geographic command is in the best position to determine
the forces needed to accomplish its mission. In some cases, requesting a
specific force and/or service may be justified because a needed capability
is available from only one service and/or one type of asset, and/or time
constraints require an immediate decision. For example, (1) a Navy



Page 77                                     GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix V
USACOM’s Force Provider Process
Description of Process




aircraft carrier battle group may be the only assets that can provide a
needed capability if local air bases in some world area are not available for
use by land-based aircraft; (2) a specialized reconnaissance aircraft, such
as the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, may only be
available in the Air Force’s inventory; or (3) the Navy is the only service
that has the necessary assets to provide an antisubmarine warfare
capability. However, some USACOM and service component command
officials said that in some recent cases specific forces continued to be
requested, even though circumstances did not justify requests for specific
units. For example, Air Force F-16CJ aircraft5 were specifically requested
by and deployed to the Central Command, even though Marine Corps’ F-18
aircraft could have also met mission requirements.

USACOM  indicated that requests for forces from the supported geographic
commands are often more specific than USACOM would like. However, a
USACOM official stated that the geographic commands are requesting
capabilities rather than specific units to meet requirements more often
now than they have in the past. The official attributed this change to
USACOM’s success in building relationships with other geographic command
staffs and the gradual rotation of officers at the commands that have an
understanding of USACOM. USACOM indicated that over time, the supported
geographic commands are learning to express requirements in terms of
capabilities as USACOM demonstrates its ability to add value to the process.

While DOD officials recognize the importance of having geographic
commands state their requirements for forces in terms of required
capabilities, they could not cite nor could we find any joint doctrine,
manual, or instruction that requires supported geographic commands to
do this. The key joint guidance document for planning and executing
military operations—the Joint Operational Planning and Execution
System—does not specify how supported geographic commands should
express their requirements when requesting forces. It also does not require
analyses of the impact of deploying a given force in consideration of
operating tempos, the Global Military Force Policy and Global Naval Force
Presence Policy, and training and readiness assessments. Not having this
requirement specifically identified in joint guidance and publications can
hinder acceptance and cause reluctance by geographic commands to
request forces by capability.



5
 The Air Force’s F-16CJ, a specialized version of its F-16 aircraft, is designed to counter the threat from
enemy air defenses. The aircraft uses the High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile Targeting System and the
High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile, which together can identify and destroy enemy missile sites.



Page 78                                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix VI

USACOM’s Low-Density/High-Demand
Assets

                                 The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Global Military Force Policy
                                 establishes peacetime prioritization guidelines for managing the use of
                                 certain limited assets with unique mission capabilities that are continually
                                 in high demand among the geographic combatant commands. USACOM is
                                 responsible for managing assigned assets within 16 of the 32
                                 low-density/high-demand asset types currently identified by the policy,
                                 which are listed in table VI.1. These assets are largely Air Force aircraft.
                                 The remaining 16 asset types are assigned solely to the U.S. Special
                                 Operations Command.

Table VI.1: USACOM’s
Low-Density/High-Demand Assets   Asset                                                                      Service
                                 Reconnaissance/battlefield management
                                 E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft                           Air Force
                                 EC-130E ABCCC aircraft                                                     Air Force
                                 U-2 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft                                  Air Force
                                 RC-135V/W Rivet Joint aircraft                                             Air Force
                                 Ground Theater Air Control System                                          Air Force
                                 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System                              Air Force
                                 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle                                           Air Force
                                 STORM JIB                                                                  Navy
                                 Electronic warfare aircraft
                                 EC-130H Compass Call                                                       Air Force
                                 EA-6B                                                                      Navy/Marine Corps
                                 Theater ballistic missile defense
                                 Patriot (missile) air defense system                                       Army
                                 Close air support
                                 A/OA-10 attack aircraft                                                    Air Force
                                 Rescue aircraft
                                 HC-130                                                                     Air Force
                                 HH-60G helicopter                                                          Air Force
                                 Chemical/biological defense
                                 310th Chemical Company (Biological Detect)                                 Army
                                 Technical Escort Unit (Chemical/Biological Response)                       Army
                                 Source: Global Military Force Policy, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, November 1998.




                                 Page 79                                                GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix VII

Comments From the Department of Defense




               Page 80      GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                     Appendix VII
                     Comments From the Department of Defense




Now on pp. 11, 63.




Now on pp. 11, 63.




                     Page 81                                   GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Appendix VIII

Major Contributors to This Report


                        Richard Davis, Director
National Security and   Marvin E. Casterline, Assistant Director
International Affairs   Mark J. Wielgoszynski, Senior Evaluator
Division, Washington,
D.C.
                        Fred S. Harrison, Evaluator-in-Charge
Norfolk Field Office    Joseph A. Rutecki, Senior Evaluator
                        Connie W. Sawyer, Jr., Senior Evaluator
                        Carleen C. Bennett, Senior Evaluator




                        Page 82                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Glossary


Area of Responsibility       The geographical area within which a combatant commander has
                             authority to plan and conduct operations.


Continental United States    U. S. territory, including the adjacent territorial waters, on the North
                             American continent between Canada and Mexico.


Geographic Command           A unified command (composed of significant assigned components of two
                             or more military departments) with a broad continuing mission under a
                             single commander that has geographic responsibilities. The geographic
                             commands are the Atlantic, Central, European, Pacific, and Southern
                             Commands.


Interoperability             Ability of systems, units, or forces to provide services to and accept
                             services from other systems, units, or forces to enable them to operate
                             effectively together.


Joint Doctrine               Fundamental principles that guide the employment of forces from two or
                             more services in coordinated action toward a common objective.


Joint Force                  A force composed of significant elements, assigned or attached, of two or
                             more military departments, operating under a single joint force
                             commander.


Joint Operation Planning     A continuously evolving system that is being developed through the
and Execution System         integration and enhancement of earlier planning and execution systems.
                             The system provides the foundation for conventional command and
                             control by national- and theater-level commanders and their staffs. It is
                             designed to satisfy their information needs in the conduct of joint planning
                             and operations and is used to monitor, plan, and execute mobilization,
                             deployment, employment, and sustainment activities associated with joint
                             operations.


Joint Tactics, Techniques,   Publications, issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that
and Procedures               detail the actions and methods for implementing joint doctrine and
                             describe how forces will be employed in joint operations.



                             Page 83                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
                            Glossary




Joint Task Force            A joint force that may be established on a geographical area or functional
                            basis when the mission has a specific limited objective and does not
                            require overall centralized control of logistics. It is dissolved by the proper
                            authority when the purpose for which it was created has been achieved or
                            when it is no longer required.


Major Focus Areas           The main areas, as defined by USACOM, where the Command must focus its
                            efforts to fulfill its vision and mission.


Military Operations Other   Operations that encompass a wide range of activities where the military is
Than War                    used for purposes other than large-scale combat operations usually
                            associated with war, such as counterterrorism, military support to
                            counterdrug operations, noncombatant evacuation operations, nation
                            assistance, civil support operations, and peace operations.


National Command            The President and the Secretary of Defense or their duly deputized
Authorities                 alternatives or successors.

Service Component           A command consisting of the service component commander and all those
Command                     service forces, such as individuals, units, detachments, organizations, and
                            installations under the command, including the support forces, that have
                            been assigned to a combatant command, or further assigned to a
                            subordinate unified command or joint task force. For example, the Army’s
                            Forces Command is one of USACOM’s service component commands.


Unified Command Plan        Document sets forth basic guidance to all unified combatant commanders;
                            establishes their missions, responsibilities, and force structure; delineates
                            the general geographic area of responsibility for geographic commanders;
                            and specifies functional responsibilities for functional commanders. It is
                            approved by the President, published by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
                            of Staff, and addressed to the commanders of combatant commands.




(701114)                    Page 84                                    GAO/NSIAD-99-39 U.S. Atlantic Command
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov




PRINTED ON    RECYCLED PAPER
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested