United States General Accounting Office

GAO Briefing Report to the Chairman and

Ranking Minority Member, Committee

on National Security, House of

Representatives

November 1996 UNIFIED COMMAND

PLAN

Atlantic and Southern

Command

Participation in 1995

Review

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-274584 

December 5, 1996

The Honorable Floyd D. Spence

Chairman,

The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums

Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

This report responds to the House Report 104-563 requirement that we

review changes in the U.S. Southern Command’s and the U.S. Atlantic

Command’s geographic responsibilities resulting from the 1995 review of

the Unified Command Plan (UCP).1

 We focused on issues related to the

realignment of responsibility for the Caribbean Basin from the Atlantic to

the Southern Command.2

 Our objectives were to determine the (1) UCP

review process and how the Atlantic and Southern Commands

participated in the process, (2) views of the Southern and Atlantic

Commands regarding the Caribbean realignment, and (3) rationale for the

Chairman’s recommendation of the realignment.

Background The UCP, among other things, establishes geographic and functional

responsibilities for the Department of Defense’s (DOD) unified commands.

Section 161 of title 10 of the U.S. Code, as added by the Goldwater-Nichols

Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 requires the Chairman,

Joint Chiefs of Staff, to conduct a biennial review of the UCP to examine

the force structure, missions, and responsibilities, including geographic

boundaries, of each unified command. Prior to the UCP review in 1995, the

Southern Command was responsible for military operations in Central and

South America, excluding the adjoining waters. The Atlantic Command

was responsible for all military operations in the Atlantic Ocean, parts of

the Pacific Ocean adjoining Central and South America, and the Caribbean

Basin. On the basis of the 1993 UCP review, the Atlantic Command also had

the functional responsibility to train and integrate most U.S.-based forces

for joint operations, and for providing these forces for worldwide

employment.

The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, sets the UCP review agenda, and after

the review is completed, makes recommendations on UCP changes through

1

House Report 104-563, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Committee on

National Security, p. 330 (1996).

2

The Caribbean Basin refers to the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and islands within this region.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
B-274584 

the Secretary of Defense to the President. For the 1995 review, the

Chairman posed the following three questions. First, should each

geographic (unified) command be responsible for both major land and

adjoining water areas in order to ensure a total air, land, and sea

capability? Second, should some of the areas of responsibility be realigned

or consolidated? Third, should responsibility for former Soviet Union

states be assigned to a specific command? The first question was of

particular interest to the Southern and Atlantic Commands because it

raised the issue of whether responsibility for the waters adjoining Central

and South America and for the Caribbean Basin should be realigned from

one command to the other.

Following the 1995 review, the Chairman recommended, and the Secretary

of Defense and the President approved, several UCP changes, including that

the Southern Command assume responsibility for waters adjoining Central

and South America and for the Caribbean Basin. The transfer of

responsibility for the waters adjoining Central and South America from the

Atlantic Command became effective January 1, 1996, and the transfer of

the Caribbean Basin will be effective on June 1, 1997. 3

Results in Brief The 1995 UCP review provided numerous opportunities for participants to

express their views regarding potential UCP changes. Officials from the

Southern and Atlantic Commands participated actively throughout the

process. For example, at the beginning of the UCP review, the Chairman

solicited and obtained the views of the two commands regarding issues to

be included in the review. Also, command officials participated in a

working group that discussed UCP issues, including the Caribbean

alignment, and identified related pros and cons. A Joint Staff working

group further refined the issues; developed options and recommendations

for the Chairman’s consideration; and, after the Chairman’s review,

obtained the commands’ comments on proposed UCP changes. Also, during

the time of the UCP review, the commanders of the Southern and Atlantic

Commands participated in three conferences at which potential UCP issues

and changes were discussed.

Throughout the 1995 UCP review, the Southern and Atlantic Commands

maintained opposing views on realigning the responsibility for the

Caribbean Basin. The Southern Command supported the Caribbean

realignment, viewing it as a positive move to enhance unity of command in

Latin America and the Caribbean Basin and to improve the command’s

3

This change did not affect the Atlantic Command’s functional responsibilities.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
B-274584 

focus on joint operations. The Atlantic Command opposed the

realignment, viewing the reduction of its geographic area as diminishing

its credibility as a joint force trainer. The Atlantic Command also believed

that this change would prevent it from fully developing its functional role

of joint force trainer, integrator, and provider as envisioned in the 1993 UCP

review.

The Chairman’s stated rationale for transferring the responsibility for the

waters adjoining Central and South America and for the Caribbean Basin

to the Southern Command was that these changes would (1) improve the

Southern Command’s interaction with navies of Central and South

America, (2) make the UCP consistent with the way the rest of the U.S.

government is organized to interact with Latin America and the Caribbean

Basin, and (3) eliminate a seam in DOD counterdrug operations and

military-to-military relations in the region. The Secretary of Defense also

noted that the UCP changes affecting the Atlantic and Southern Commands

would place all U.S. military activities in the Caribbean Basin and Central

and South America under one command.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

DOD reviewed a draft of this report and concurred with its contents. DOD’s

letter appears in appendix I.

Scope and

Methodology

To conduct our work, we interviewed knowledgeable officials and

reviewed relevant documentation at the offices of the Assistant Secretary

of Defense for Strategy and Requirements; the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the

U.S. Southern Command; and the U.S. Atlantic Command. We did not

evaluate the thoroughness of the process, the validity of the commands’

views, or the efficacy of the Chairman’s recommendation. Our review of

the Chairman’s rationale for the UCP change was limited to his

memorandum to the Secretary of Defense; we did not interview the

Chairman. We performed our review between July and September 1996.

This report is organized into four briefing sections. Section I includes

background information. Section II discusses the 1995 UCP review process.

Section III presents the views of the Southern and Atlantic Commands.

Section IV discusses these commands’ participation in the review and the

Chairman’s rationale for realigning the Caribbean.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
B-274584 

We are providing copies of this report to other appropriate congressional

committees. We will also send copies to the Secretaries of Defense, the

Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps;

the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Commanders in Chief of the U.S.

Atlantic and U.S. Southern Commands; and the Director, Office of

Management and Budget. Copies will be made available to others upon

request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me

at (202) 512-3504. The major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix II.

Richard Davis

Director, National Security

 Analysis

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Contents

Letter 1

Briefing Section I 

Background

8

UCP History of SOUTHCOM, USACOM and Caribbean AOR 8

AOR Changes in USACOM and SOUTHCOM After 1995 UCP

Review

9

Briefing Section II 

1995 UCP Review

12

Framework of 1995 Process 12

Discussion of UCP Issues and Changes 13

Briefing Section III 

Commands’ Views on

Caribbean

Realignment

16

SOUTHCOM’s Views Supporting UCP Changes 16

USACOM’s Views Opposing UCP Changes 17

Briefing Section IV 

Commands’

Participation, and

Rationale for UCP

Change

20

Command Participation in UCP Review 20

Chairman’s Rationale for Recommending Caribbean Transfer 21

Appendix I 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

24

Appendix II 

Major Contributors to

This Report

25

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Contents

Abbreviations

AOR area of responsibility

CARIBCOM Caribbean Command

CINC Commander in chief

DOD Department of Defense

LANTCOM Atlantic Command

SOUTHCOM U.S. Southern Command

UCP Unified Command Plan

USLANTCOM U.S. Atlantic Command

USACOM U.S. Atlantic Command

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section I 

Background

GAO UCP History of SOUTHCOM, 

USACOM, and Caribbean AOR 

1946

1947

1950

1956

1963

1983

1986

1993

1995

1997

UCP and CARIBCOM Established

LANTCOM Established

Caribbean Transfers to SOUTHCOM

LANTCOM Becomes USLANTCOM

USLANTCOM Becomes USACOM

CARIBCOM Becomes SOUTHCOM 

Caribbean Water Transferred From 

CARIBCOM to LANTCOM

UCP Review Realigned Caribbean

Responsibility to SOUTHCOM

Goldwater-Nichols Act 

Requires UCP Review

Caribbean Land Transferred From

CARIBCOM to LANTCOM

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section I 

Background

In December 1946, the Joint Chiefs of Staff established an organizational

directive that became known as the Unified Command Plan (UCP).

Approved by the President, the UCP sets forth basic guidance to unified

commanders; establishes missions, functions, and force structure; and

delineates geographic areas of responsibility (AOR). Under section 161 of

title 10 of the U.S. Code, as added by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of

Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff is

required to review the UCP not less than every 2 years for missions,

responsibilities, and force structure, and to recommend changes as may be

necessary through the Secretary of Defense to the President.

The UCP established the Caribbean Command (CARIBCOM) and the Atlantic

Command (LANTCOM) in 1946 and 1947, respectively. Until 1950, CARIBCOM’s

AOR was composed of Central and South America and the Caribbean Basin.

At that time, the UCP was modified and operational responsibility for

Caribbean waters was transferred to LANTCOM. In 1956, the responsibility

for Caribbean islands was also transferred to LANTCOM. In 1963, CARIBCOM

was redesignated as the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) to more

clearly reflect its geographical responsibilities.

In 1983, LANTCOM was redesignated as the U.S. Atlantic Command

(USLANTCOM). In 1993, the UCP was modified to redesignate USLANTCOM as

the U.S. Atlantic Command (USACOM) and to expand the command’s

responsibilities. In addition to its geographic responsibilities for the

Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean, and other areas, USACOM assumed

functional responsibility to train, integrate, and provide forces.

Specifically, the command was to conduct joint training of most

U.S.-based forces and staffs assigned to joint task forces, and to provide

joint trained and ready forces for worldwide employment as directed by

the National Command Authority. In 1995, the UCP modified USACOM’s

geographic responsibilities such that responsibility for the Caribbean

Basin will transfer to SOUTHCOM on June 1, 1997.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section I 

Background

GAO AOR Changes in USACOM and 

SOUTHCOM After 1995 UCP Review

Phase II: The Gulf of Mexico,

Caribbean Sea, island nations therein 

and parts of the Atlantic Ocean will 

transfer from USACOM to SOUTHCOM 

on June 1, 1997.

Phase I: Adjoining waters 

around Central and South 

America transferred from 

USACOM to SOUTHCOM on 

January 1, 1996.

28 N0

 SOUTHCOM AOR Before 1995 UCP Review

58 W0

8 N0

92 W0 30 W0

Antarctic Circle

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section I 

Background

The 1995 UCP review resulted in transfers of geographic areas from USACOM

to SOUTHCOM. These changes will occur in two phases. Phase I,

implemented on January 1, 1996, transferred waters adjoining Central and

South America to SOUTHCOM’s AOR. This transfer of waters included a

12-mile band of the Caribbean Sea that adjoined Central and South

America. Phase II, effective on June 1, 1997, will transfer the Gulf of

Mexico, Caribbean Sea and the islands therein, and parts of the Atlantic

Ocean to SOUTHCOM. The Caribbean Basin transfer results in the shifting of

responsibility for several nations and dependent areas.1 USACOM’s

responsibility will decrease from 16 to 3 nations and from 13 to 2

dependent areas. SOUTHCOM’s responsibility, on the other hand, will

increase from 19 to 32 nations and 1 to 14 dependent areas.

1

Dependent areas are islands or other areas that are not independent nations, but are dependents of

independent nations (e.g., the British Virgin Islands and French Guiana).

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section II 

1995 UCP Review

GAO Framework of 1995 Process

Chairman Identifies UCP Issues

Chairman Solicits and Obtains 

Command Views on UCP Review 

Issues

Chairman Sets UCP Review Agenda 

and Approves Principles of Analysis

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section II 

1995 UCP Review

The 1995 UCP review began in February 1995 and concluded in December

1995. In early February 1995, the Chairman initiated the 1995 UCP review by

introducing it during a regularly scheduled conference of Department of

Defense (DOD) commanders in chief (CINCs). Later that month, the

Chairman sent a message to the CINCs and service chiefs that identified

questions he wanted the UCP review to cover and solicited their views and

suggestions on additional questions or issues. The Chairman set the

overall agenda for the review, which consisted of three key questions:

(1) Should each geographic CINC be responsible for both major land and

adjoining water areas in order to ensure total air, land, and sea capability?

(2) Should some of the AORs be realigned or consolidated? (3) Should some

former Soviet Union states be assigned to a specific CINC?

In April, the Joint Staff developed principles for analysis to be used in

evaluating potential UCP changes. The principles were that (1) any changes

must support the National Security Strategy, National Military Strategy,

and public law; (2) the UCP must maintain strategic focus to support

national security interests; (3) the UCP must consider diplomatic and

international obligations; (4) geographic boundaries must support

enduring joint operations in peace and war; (5) AORs must optimize span of

control; and (6) changes to the UCP must conform to the “art of the

possible”—be doable, realistic, sellable, and affordable. In May, the

Chairman approved these principles.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section II 

1995 UCP Review

GAO Discussion of UCP Issues and 

Changes

Working Group Discussed UCP Issues 

and Identified Pros and Cons

Joint Staff Refined Issues, Developed 

Options and Recommendations

Chairman Reviewed Joint Staff Options 

and Recommendations

Commands Commented on Proposed 

UCP Changes Set Forth by Chairman

Chairman Recommended UCP Changes

For 2 weeks in mid-May 1995, a UCP working group of Joint Staff, unified

command, and service representatives debated UCP issues and developed a

list of pros and cons for each issue. In early June, a working group of Joint

Staff officials convened for 2 days to analyze issues considered to be

particularly contentious, including the realignment of responsibility for the

Caribbean Basin. This Joint Staff group subsequently refined all the UCP

issues and related pros and cons and developed specific options and

recommendations on UCP changes for the Chairman’s review. Regarding

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section II 

1995 UCP Review

the Caribbean Basin, this group provided the Chairman with two options:

(1) transfer the waters adjoining Central and South America (minus the

Caribbean Basin) to SOUTHCOM and (2) transfer both adjoining waters and

the Caribbean Basin to SOUTHCOM. The Joint Staff working group

recommended that USACOM retain the Caribbean Basin for the time being

and that the issue be revisited in a subsequent UCP review. They

specifically suggested waiting because of the situation in the Caribbean

(e.g., ongoing Haiti operations and potential instability in Cuba) and

current demands on SOUTHCOM (e.g., removing forces from Panama and

relocating the headquarters to Miami).

According to officials from the Joint Staff, SOUTHCOM, and USACOM, the

results of the two working groups reflected the collective military

judgment of the participants. The groups used the principles of analysis to

guide their discussions but did not perform any detailed or formal analyses

of potential UCP changes.

According to Joint Staff officials, the Chairman reviewed the results of the

two working groups and, in August, proposed that both the waters

adjoining Central and South America and the Caribbean Basin be

transferred to SOUTHCOM. The Joint Staff then obtained command and

service representatives’ comments on this proposal. In October, after

reviewing these comments, the Chairman forwarded his final

recommendations on UCP changes (including that the Caribbean be

transferred) to the Secretary of Defense who concurred. In December, the

President approved the revised UCP.

Joint Staff officials, noting that the Chairman’s recommendation differed

from the Joint Staff working group’s recommendation, emphasized that

the working group was one of many sources of information available to

the Chairman. Examples of other potential sources included the

Chairman’s own military judgment and experience; the results of

discussions between the Chairman, Secretary of Defense, and other U.S.

and allied officials; verbal and written comments from CINCs and service

chiefs; and recommendations of the 1995 Commission on Roles and

Missions of the Armed Forces that DOD separate the geographic and

functional roles assigned to USACOM.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section III 

Commands’ Views on Caribbean

Realignment

GAO SOUTHCOM's Views Supporting UCP 

Changes 

Enhances Interaction with Regional 

Militaries

Improves Joint Military Focus in Region

Improves Counterdrug Operations

Aligns SOUTHCOM Similar to Other U.S. 

Agencies and Regional Organizations

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section III 

Commands’ Views on Caribbean

Realignment

SOUTHCOM expressed a number of reasons why it supported the UCP

changes regarding the waters adjoining Central and South America and the

Caribbean Basin. In its view, gaining this area would improve SOUTHCOM’s

interactions with regional militaries and in particular with regional navies

since SOUTHCOM gains maritime responsibilities. SOUTHCOM officials also

stated the Caribbean realignment would improve U.S. understanding of the

joint capabilities of, and bilateral ties among, militaries in the expanded

region.

SOUTHCOM also believed that assigning the adjoining waters would improve

the U.S. military’s joint focus within the region. SOUTHCOM lacked unity of

command because it only had responsibility for Central and South

American land and did not control U.S. forces at sea within the region.

SOUTHCOM stated that the UCP change would enhance joint force

effectiveness by allowing integration of U.S. air, land, and sea forces

throughout Latin America and the Caribbean Basin.

In SOUTHCOM’s view, acquiring the Caribbean will improve counterdrug

operations by putting one commander in charge of these operations in the

Caribbean and Latin American region. SOUTHCOM believed that the prior UCP

alignment complicated providing military support to these operations

because of the extent of coordination required between the two

commands and Joint Staff. SOUTHCOM will now have sole monitoring and

detection responsibility for air, land, and sea approaches from the south,

and for facilitating unity of command, easing coordination of support to

operations in both the source and transit zones, and enabling SOUTHCOM to

allocate resources to the operations without extensive coordination.

SOUTHCOM also said that combining Central and South America with the

Caribbean Basin would improve interagency and international efforts

because SOUTHCOM would be aligned similar to other U.S. agencies and

regional organizations. For example, both the U.S. Department of State

and the Organization of American States have organizations that combine

Central and South America with the Caribbean Basin. The Command

believed that this arrangement would simplify counterdrug, peacekeeping,

disaster relief, and humanitarian assistance missions in the region.

SOUTHCOM, agreeing with a recent recommendation of the Commission on

Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces, also asserted that the Caribbean

realignment would allow USACOM to better focus on its functional role to

train, integrate, and provide joint forces for worldwide deployment.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section III 

Commands’ Views on Caribbean

Realignment

GAO USACOM's Views Opposing UCP 

Changes

Joint Training Credibility At Risk

Major Land Needed for Joint Focus

More Time Needed to Fully Accomplish 

Command's Mission

Little Effect on Counterdrug Operations

Make SOUTHCOM a Subcommand

USACOM opposed the UCP changes related to the Caribbean Basin for several

reasons. It believed the loss of major land areas associated with the

realignment diminished its credibility as a joint trainer and lessened its

joint focus. Without the land, USACOM’s AOR consists mostly of air and sea;

thus, the Command lacks the three-dimensional focus that it perceives is

necessary to carry out its joint training and integration role. USACOM stated

it needed the land areas to maintain operational awareness—a

war-fighting perspective—of what is required to train and fight on land.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section III 

Commands’ Views on Caribbean

Realignment

Otherwise, a narrow view or “garrison mentality” regarding joint training

for land operations could evolve. Also, USACOM believed that taking away

major land areas was contrary to the concept underlying one of the

Chairman’s questions for the review—that commands need major land and

adjoining waters in their AORs to maintain a joint focus.

USACOM also believed the loss of major land areas would be counter to the

intended purpose and structure of the Command before it had the

opportunity to fully accomplish the functional role envisioned in the 1993

UCP—training, providing, and integrating forces. The Command’s concept

was based on three pillars: (1) assignment of combatant command of

continental forces from all services; (2) an adequate geographic area of

responsibility in which to maintain an operational focus in order to train,

exercise, and jointly integrate forces; and (3) the development of joint

training for continental operational forces. According to USACOM, reducing

its AOR will hinder full implementation of this concept.

USACOM did not agree with SOUTHCOM’s view that the realignment was

needed to improve counterdrug operations and would place drug source

and interdiction operations under one command. USACOM believed that the

Caribbean realignment simply moved the boundary between commands

for coordinating counterdrug responsibilities further north and did not

enhance operations or reduce communication and coordination

requirements. Regardless of the transfer, USACOM will continue to have

responsibilities for drug transit detection across most U.S. borders. Also,

USACOM will continue to be the force provider for counterdrug operations

in the Caribbean.

USACOM believed that an alternative to realigning the Caribbean was to

make SOUTHCOM a subcommand of another command. The Command

believed this arrangement, in conjunction with SOUTHCOM’s relocation from

Panama to Miami, would avoid duplication of resources. USACOM had

suggested it be discussed during the 1995 UCP review. However, the

Chairman did not include it among the issues to be considered. At a

minimum, USACOM believed that any decision to realign the Caribbean

should be delayed for consideration until the 1997 UCP review.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section IV 

Commands’ Participation, and Rationale for

UCP Change

GAO Command Participation in UCP Review 

Commands Actively Participated in UCP 

Review

Commands' Views Were Included 

Throughout Process

Dissenting Views Were Highlighted to 

Chairman and Secretary of Defense

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section IV 

Commands’ Participation, and Rationale for

UCP Change

SOUTHCOM and USACOM actively participated in the 1995 UCP review and

expressed their views regarding UCP issues, including the Caribbean

realignment, on numerous occasions. For example, both commands

provided written suggestions in response to the Chairman’s February 1995

request for their views on questions and issues to be addressed during the

review. SOUTHCOM and USACOM had representatives assigned to the UCP

working group. According to command officials, these representatives had

the opportunity to present their command’s position on UCP issues. Issue

papers prepared by the UCP and Joint Staff working groups, which

included pros and cons of specific proposals to revise the UCP, reflected

the key views of SOUTHCOM and USACOM. Both commands reviewed and

provided written comments on UCP changes at various stages of the

review, and these views were forwarded to the Chairman. Also, during the

review period, SOUTHCOM and USACOM commanders participated in three

CINC conferences in which UCP issues and potential changes were

discussed.

The process afforded an opportunity for USACOM to formally register its

dissent regarding the transfer of the Caribbean Basin to SOUTHCOM. The

Joint Staff, in presenting options and recommendations to the Chairman,

highlighted and included dissent from USACOM. After the Chairman decided

to recommend the transfer, the USACOM commander wrote a formal letter

of dissent to the Chairman. The Chairman highlighted the key points of

USACOM’s dissent in his memorandum to the Secretary of Defense outlining

recommended UCP changes and attached a copy of USACOM’s letter.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section IV 

Commands’ Participation, and Rationale for

UCP Change

GAO Chairman's Rationale for 

Recommending Caribbean Transfer

Improves Interaction with Navies of Latin 

America and Caribbean Region

Aligns Geographic Responsibilities 

Similar to Those of Other U.S. Agencies

Eliminates a Seam in DOD Counterdrug 

Operations and Military-to-Military 

Relations in the Region

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Briefing Section IV 

Commands’ Participation, and Rationale for

UCP Change

In his October 23, 1995, memorandum to the Secretary of Defense

outlining recommended UCP changes, the Chairman stated his key

rationale. First, the UCP change giving SOUTHCOM the adjoining waters

would improve interaction between SOUTHCOM and the navies of Central

and South America. Second, assigning SOUTHCOM the Caribbean Basin

would make the UCP consistent with how other U.S. agencies are

geographically organized to manage affairs in the Caribbean Basin and

Latin America. Third, this change would eliminate a seam (i.e., the

boundary between SOUTHCOM and USACOM) in DOD counterdrug operations

and military-to-military relations throughout the region. In a February 7,

1996, press release announcing the UCP changes, the Secretary of Defense

also noted that the realignment would allow a single commander to

control all U.S. military activities in the Caribbean Basin and Central and

South America.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Sharon L. Pickup, Assistant Director

Stephen L. Caldwell, Evaluator

Office of the General

Counsel

Margaret L. Armen, Attorney-Advisor

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

Joseph A. Rutecki, Evaluator

Carleen C. Bennett, Evaluator

(701095) Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-97-41BR Unified Command Plan
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 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

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 (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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