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

GAO United States

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

Purpose As the twenty-first century approaches, the United States faces the critical

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.

Background Until 1993, the lack of a joint headquarters to oversee the forces of the

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.

Results in Brief USACOM has advanced joint training by developing a state-of-the-art joint

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

in Executing Functional

Roles

USACOM’s actions to enhance joint training have generally been consistent

with those envisioned when the Command was established. Its efforts

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

Contributions to Joint

Military Capabilities Not

Assessed, and Views Vary

USACOM has conducted several self-assessments of its performance. These

have largely been evaluations of progress toward accomplishing tasks

associated with its functional roles and other areas of major focus—they

provide little insight into the Command’s contributions to improved joint

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

Assimilated and Roles and

Responsibilities Expanded

The Unified Command Plan, which serves as the charter for USACOM and

the other unified commands, only broadly describes the roles and

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.

Recommendations It is important that USACOM be able to evaluate its performance and impact

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

Agency Comments

and GAO’s Evaluation

In written comments (see app. VII) on a draft of this report, DOD concurred

with GAO’s recommendations. In its comments, DOD provided additional

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 

Introduction

16

A Vision for a New Command 16

Expanding Atlantic Command to Become the Joint Force

Integrator

17

Initial Charter Documents Provide Direction for Establishing the

Command

18

Overview of USACOM 19

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 23

Chapter 2 

USACOM Has Had

Successes and Major

Redirection in

Implementing Its

Functional Roles

25

Some Successes Achieved by USACOM as Joint Force Trainer 25

Command Assumes Much More Limited Role as Force Provider 30

Integrator Role Evolves Into a Process to Improve

Interoperability and Joint Capabilities

37

Chapter 3 

Value of USACOM’s

Contributions to Joint

Military Capabilities

42

USACOM’s Assessments Provide Little Insight on Value of

Command’s Contributions

42

Goals and Objectives Established, but Assessments of

Command’s Impact Not Planned

45

Views Regarding the Value of USACOM’s Contributions 47

Chapter 4 

Command Still Being

Assimilated and Roles

and Responsibilities

Expanded

53

Joint Training Role Has Been Institutionalized 53

Other Functional Roles Not Yet Institutionalized 53

USACOM’s Roles and Responsibilities Have Been Further

Expanded

54

Chapter 5 

Conclusions and

Recommendations

60

Conclusions 60

Recommendations 61

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

Process

74

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

Command

18

 Table 2.1: USACOM’s Advanced Concept Technology

Demonstration Projects

39

Table 3.1: Examples of Goals, Objectives, and Subobjectives in

USACOM Major Focus Areas

46

Table 4.1: Missions and Authorizations for Five Activities

Transferred to USACOM

55

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

Geographic Command

22

Figure 2.1: USACOM’s Training Center Provides State-of-the-Art

Equipment to Facilitate Joint Task Force Commander Training

28

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

Package

71

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.

A Vision for a New

Command

With the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Eastern European

communist regimes in 1989, the Cold War was over and a new world order

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.

Expanding Atlantic

Command to Become

the Joint Force

Integrator

The Chairman’s 1993 report on roles and missions led to an expansion of

the roles of the U.S. Atlantic Command. Most notably, the Secretary of

Defense, upon review of the Chairman’s report, endorsed the concept of

one command overseeing the joint training, integrating, and deploying of

CONUS-based forces. With this lead, but without formal guidance from the

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

Command

Time frame Event

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

March

April

May/June

August

October

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.

Secretary of Defense endorses Chairman’s recommendation.

Commander, U.S. Atlantic Command, establishes

implementation working group for expanding the Command’s

roles.

Secretary of Defense directs service secretaries and unified

commanders to implement the Chairman’s recommendation.

Draft plan for implementing USACOM concept presented to

military services and unified commanders for comment.

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.

Secretary of Defense directs implementation of Unified

Command Plan revisions and approves USACOM

implementation plan, effective October 1, 1993.

Source: USACOM.

Initial Charter

Documents Provide

Direction for

Establishing the

Command

The USACOM implementation plan and revised Unified Command Plan, both

issued in October 1993, provided the initial approval and guidance for

expanding the responsibilities of the U.S. Atlantic Command. The Unified

Command Plan gave USACOM “additional responsibilities for the joint

training, preparation, and packaging of assigned CONUS-based forces for

worldwide employment” and assigned it four service component

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.

Overview of USACOM DOD has nine unified commands, each of which comprises forces from two

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

U.S.

European

Command

U.S.

Southern

Command

U.S. Special

Operations

Command

U.S.

Transportation

Command

U.S.

Central

Command

U.S.

Pacific

Command

U.S.

Space

Command

U.S.

Strategic

Command

Secretary

of

Defense

Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff

Communications

U.S.

Atlantic

Command

Functional and geographic

Functional

Geographic

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

Atlantic (USACOM) 

Central (USCENTCOM) 

European (USEUCOM) 

Pacific (USPACOM) 

Southern (USSOUTHCOM) 

USPACOM

USCENTCOM

USEUCOM

USACOM

USSOUTHCOM

USPACOM

North 

Pacific 

Ocean

Arctic Ocean Arctic Ocean Arctic Ocean

South 

Pacific 

Ocean South 

Atlantic 

Ocean

North 

Atlantic 

Ocean

Indian Ocean

67.9%

20.4%

8.6% 2.1%

1.0%

Geographic command Percentage of assigned forces

North 

Pacific 

Ocean

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.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

In response to congressional interest in DOD’s efforts to improve joint

operations, we reviewed 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 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.

Some Successes

Achieved by USACOM

as Joint Force Trainer

USACOM planned to improve joint force training and interoperability

through six initiatives laid out in its implementation plan. The initiatives

were to (1) improve the exercise scheduling process, (2) develop mobile

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

Exercise Scheduling and to

Develop Mobile Teams

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff initially gave USACOM executive

agent authority (authority to act on his behalf) for joint training, including

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

Training Program

Established

To satisfy its third, fifth, and sixth initiatives, USACOM has developed a joint

training program that reflects the supported geographic commanders’

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

Commander Training

Joint training, conducted primarily at USACOM’s Joint Training, Analysis and

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

Provided by USACOM

USACOM provides joint and multinational training support through its

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.

Command Assumes

Much More Limited

Role as Force

Provider

USACOM has made substantive changes to its approach to providing forces.

Adaptive joint force packaging was to have been the foundation for

implementing its force provider role. When this concept encountered

strong opposition, USACOM adopted a process-oriented approach that is

much less controversial with supported geographic commands and the

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

Was Adopted but Replaced

by Process-Oriented

Approach

USACOM’s implementation plan introduced the operational concept of

adaptive joint force packages as an approach for carrying out USACOM’s

functional roles, particularly the provider and integrator roles. Under this

approach, USACOM would develop force packages for operations less than a

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 command states

 requirements in terms of military

 capabilities rather than

 specific forces

Validation

Validates the reasonableness of

 and the ability to fulfill the requirement

Identification

Identifies all forces with

 required capabilities

Selection

Select the best available

 force in conjunction with

 the supported command, Joint

 Staff, and service components

Training

Ensure forces are

 trained to appropriate

 joint standards

Deployment

Deploy the force

Coordination

 

Organization

 

Element/Action

Joint

Staff

USACOM and

Service 

Components

Supported

Command

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

Provider of Forces

USACOM, commanding nearly 68 percent of the combat forces assigned to

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

Force Provider Decisions

Is Limited

USACOM provides forces throughout the world for the entire range of

military operations, from war to operations other than war that may or

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

Balancing Operating and

Personnel Tempos

A primary consideration in identifying and selecting forces for deployment

is the operating and personnel tempos of the forces, which affect force

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

Integrator Role

Evolves Into a

Process to Improve

Interoperability and

Joint Capabilities

The integrator role has changed significantly since 1993 and is still

evolving. It was originally tied to adaptive joint force packaging. But with

that concept’s demise, the Command’s role became to implement a

process to improve interoperability and enhance joint force capabilities

through the blending of technology, systems, and doctrine. The

Command’s force integration objectives are to (1) identify and refine

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

Technology Demonstration

Projects Provide Primary

Means for Fulfilling Role

USACOM’s primary means to fulfill its integration role has been to sponsor

advanced concept technology demonstration projects. These projects are

designed to permit early and inexpensive evaluations of mature advanced

technologies to meet the needs of the warfighter. The Command

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

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Provide near-real-time imagery to the warfighter by using two complementary,

performance-enhanced air vehicles (Global Hawk, Darkstar) and a ground control

segment.

$1,011

Joint Countermine Demonstrate the capability to conduct a “seamless” transition of countermine operations

from sea to land.

556

Synthetic Theater of War Under exercise conditions, develop and preview technology that provides effective and

efficient joint task force training.

215

Battlefield Awareness and

Data Dissemination

Disseminate and manage information for warfighter systems. 114

Semi-Automated Image

Intelligence Processing

Develop tools to assist image analysts in exploiting large volumes of image data from

tactical image platforms.

119

Combat Identification Demonstrate and assess the utility of air-to-surface and surface-to-surface technologies

to positively identify friendly, hostile, and neutral platforms.

67

Navigation Warfare Demonstrate proof of concept for preventing adversaries’ use of precision satellite

navigation while protecting friendly access to Global Positioning System.

57

Joint Logistics Develop joint decision support tools to achieve seamless interoperability and control of

the logistic pipeline.

52

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

a loaded condition) through high sea conditions.

25

Integrated Collection

Management

Allow Joint Task Force commanders to better synchronize intelligence, surveillance, and

reconnaissance assets across national, theater, and tactical levels of control.

17

Link-16/Variable Message

Format

Proof of concept for the exchange of information between Link-16 and Variable Message

Format Ground networks.

3

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

USACOM Integration

Efforts

In addition to its advanced concept technology demonstration projects,

USACOM has sought opportunities to advance the interoperability6 of

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’s

Assessments Provide

Little Insight on Value

of Command’s

Contributions

USACOM has conducted three self-assessments of its functional roles. These

appraisals did not specifically evaluate the Command’s contribution to

improving joint operational capabilities but discussed progress of actions

taken in its functional roles. The first two appraisals covered USACOM’s

success in executing its plan for implementing the functional roles, while

the most recent appraisal rated the Command’s progress in each of its

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

Progress on Implementing

Functional Roles

In a June 1994 interim report to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

USACOM’s Commander noted that the Command’s first 6 months of

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

Cites Progress and

Problems in Command’s

Major Focus Areas

As requested by USACOM’s Commander, USACOM staff assessed progress and

problems in the Command’s major focus areas in early 1998. This

self-assessment covered the Command’s directorate-level leadership

responsible for each major focus area. An official involved in this

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

Progress in Advancing

Joint Operations

USACOM, like other unified commands, uses several mechanisms to report

progress and issues to DOD leadership and the Congress. These include

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

Joint Operations

Specialized

Services

autonomously

operate toward 

a common

objective

Synergistic

Service 

capabilities

are integrated 

but hampered by 

lack of common

doctrine

Coherent

Service capabilities

are fully 

interoperable 

and linked by 

common

joint doctrine

Source: USACOM.

Goals and Objectives

Established, but

Assessments of

Command’s Impact

Not Planned

At the conclusion of our review, USACOM was completing the development

of a new strategic planning system to enhance its management of its major

focus areas and facilitate strategic planning within the USACOM staff. Goals,

objectives, and subobjectives were defined in each of its major focus

areas, and an automated internal process was being established to help the

Command track actions being taken in each area. The goals and objectives

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

USACOM Major Focus Areas

Major focus area and goal Objective Subobjective

Joint force trainer

Sustain and improve a high

quality joint task force

training program to produce

trained joint commanders

and staff.a

Enhance fidelity and rigor of

joint task force training to

provide supported

commands with flexible

high-quality training that

reduces staff tempos.a

—Resolve schedule

 conflicts between

 USACOM’s joint task

 force training and

 training provided by

 others.

—Design multiechelon

 exercises to meet the

 multiple training needs

 of geographic

 commands, joint task

 forces, and USACOM’s

 service components.

Joint force provider

Provide combat-ready joint

forces to meet worldwide

requirements.b

Identify and select

combat-ready forces.b

—Balance tempos among

 service components with

 Global Military Force

 Policy and geographic

 command requirements.

—Develop a database to

 track availability of

 deploying forces.

Joint force integrator

Develop joint, combined, and

interagency capabilities to

improve interoperability and

enhance current operational

capabilities.c

Monitor and assess

USACOM joint integration

initiatives that promote

interoperability and

enhance near-term joint

military operations.c

—Develop concepts,

 influence doctrine, and

 identify requirements at

 the geographic command

 level for providing

 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.

aOne of five trainer goals with one of four objectives supporting this goal.

bOne of three force provider goals with one of three objectives supporting this goal.

cOne 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.

Views Regarding the

Value of USACOM’s

Contributions

In the absence of specific assessments of USACOM’s impact on joint

operations, we asked representatives from the Joint Staff, USACOM and its

service component commands, and supported geographic commands for

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

Viewed as Positive but

Only Recently Used by

Some Commands

USACOM and its service components believed the Command’s joint task

force headquarters training was among the best joint training available.

This training has allowed USACOM components’ three-star commanders and

their senior staffs to be trained without fielding thousands of troops and to

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

Joint Force Provider

As the major joint force provider, USACOM was valued by the Joint Staff,

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

Value May Lie in

Longer-Term Benefits

The Commander of USACOM told us he considered joint force integration to

be the Command’s most important functional role. He believed that over

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.

Joint Training Role

Has Been

Institutionalized

Over time, the Joint Staff and USACOM have incorporated the Command’s

joint force trainer role into joint publications. These documents provide a

common understanding among DOD organizations of USACOM’s role in the

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.

Other Functional

Roles Not Yet

Institutionalized

While USACOM’s force provider and integrator roles are described in broad

terms in the Unified Command Plan, these roles have not been

incorporated into joint guidance and publications. This lack of inclusion

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.

USACOM’s Roles and

Responsibilities Have

Been Further

Expanded

The Secretary of Defense continued to expand USACOM’s roles and

responsibilities in 1998, assigning the Command several activities, the new

role of joint experimentation, and ownership of the joint deployment

process. These changes significantly expand the Command’s size and

responsibilities. Additional changes that will further expand the

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

Transferred to USACOM

Effective October 1998, five activities, formerly controlled by the

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

Activity Mission

Fiscal year 1999 budget

request and personnel

authorizations

Joint Warfare Analysis Center,

Dahlgren, Virginia

Provide Joint Staff and geographic commands with targeting options

to carry out U.S. national security and military strategy during

peacetime, crisis, and war.

$75 million

384 positions

Joint Warfighting Center, 

Fort Monroe, Virginia

Assist the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, geographic

commands, and military services in (1) preparing for joint and

multinational operations through the conceptualization, development,

and assessment of current and future joint doctrine and (2)

accomplishing joint and multinational training exercises.

$58.2 million

45 positions

Joint Communications Support

Element, MacDill Air Force Base,

Florida

Provide contingency and crisis communications to meet the

operational support needs of the geographic commands, services,

defense agencies, and non-DOD agencies such as the State

Department.

$23.3 million

415 positions

Joint C4ISRa Battle Center, 

Suffolk, Virginia

Provide geographic commands’ joint task forces with a joint command,

control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and

reconnaissance assessment and experimentation capability.

$18.2 million

45 positions

Joint Command and Control

Warfare Center, Kelly Air Force

Base, Texas

Provide the Joint Staff and geographic commanders expertise in

planning and executing command and control warfare and information

operations.

$16.7 million

166 positions

aC4ISR: 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

Executive Agent for Joint

Concept Development and

Experimentation

In May 1998, the Secretary of Defense expanded USACOM’s responsibilities

by designating it executive agent for joint concept development and

experimentation, effective October 1998. The charter directs USACOM to

develop and implement an aggressive program of experimentation to

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

Ownership of Joint

Deployment Process

In October 1998, the Secretary of Defense, acting on a recommendation of

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made USACOM owner of the joint

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

Approved

In October 1998, the Deputy Secretary of Defense approved the

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

Conclusions Retaining the effectiveness of America’s military when budgets are

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.

Recommendations It is important that USACOM be able to evaluate its performance and impact

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

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In written comments (see app. VII) on a draft of this report, DOD concurred

with the recommendations. In its comments DOD provided additional

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

Service Component Command

Subordinate Unified Command

Joint Task Force

Atlantic Fleet

(Navy)

Air Combat

Command

 (Air Force)

Forces

Command

(Army)

U.S. Marine 

Corps

Forces Atlantic

Special

Operations

Command,

USACOM

U.S. Forces

Azores

Iceland Defense

Force

Joint Task

Force 6

Joint Interagency

Task Force East

Commander

USACOM

Supreme Allied

Commander 

Atlantic (NATO)

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

interoperability

Training based on joint doctrine or joint tactics, techniques, and procedures in which more than one service

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

interoperability

Training based on allied, joint, and/or service doctrine to prepare units in response to National Command

Authority-approved mandates. Purpose is to ensure interoperability of forces and equipment between U.S.

and other nations’ forces.

5/Joint and

multinational

Training based on multinational, joint, and/or service doctrine to prepare units in response to National

Command Authority-approved mandates. Purpose is to prepare joint forces under a multinational command

arrangement.

6/Interagency and

intergovernmental

Training based on National Command Authority-derived standard operating procedures to prepare

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

Intention and Concept The adaptive joint force packaging concept was conceived as a way to fill

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

Joint Command Element

Army Division

Marine Expeditionary Brigade(s)

Air Force Wing(s)

Special Operations Forces

Joint Task Force

Command Element

Naval Task Group

Army Deployment for Training

Marine Expeditionary Unit

Full Joint Force Package

Tailored Forward Element

Naval Battle Group

Air Force Squadron(s)

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.

Demise of Concept The adaptive joint force packaging concept, particularly the packaging

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

Role of USACOM and

Its Service

Components in the

Process

USACOM headquarters acts largely as an overseer in the provider process to

review and coordinate deployment taskings, clarify and define what type

of force is needed, and ensure that forces are deployed where and when

needed to meet the requirements of the geographic commands.

Specifically, the Command’s role is to (1) issue deployment taskings from

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.

Requirements to Be

Identified as

Capabilities Needed

Under USACOM’s force provider process, supported geographic

commanders are to identify the capabilities needed to accomplish an

assigned mission in terms of the essential tasks to be performed, the

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

EC-130E ABCCC aircraft

U-2 high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft

RC-135V/W Rivet Joint aircraft

Ground Theater Air Control System

Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System

Predator unmanned aerial vehicle

STORM JIB

Air Force

Air Force

Air Force

Air Force

Air Force

Air Force

Air Force

Navy

Electronic warfare aircraft

EC-130H Compass Call

EA-6B

Air Force

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

HH-60G helicopter

Air Force

Air Force

Chemical/biological defense

310th Chemical Company (Biological Detect)

Technical Escort Unit (Chemical/Biological Response)

Army

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

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Richard Davis, Director

Marvin E. Casterline, Assistant Director

Mark J. Wielgoszynski, Senior Evaluator

Norfolk Field Office Fred S. Harrison, Evaluator-in-Charge

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

and Execution System

A continuously evolving system that is being developed through the

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,

and Procedures

Publications, issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that

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

Than War

Operations that encompass a wide range of activities where the military is

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

Authorities

The President and the Secretary of Defense or their duly deputized

alternatives or successors.

Service Component

Command

A command consisting of the service component commander and all those

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

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100