1. Deputy Director for Strategy and Policy, Joint Staff J5
Unified Command Plan
Deputy Director for Strategy and Policy, Joint Staff J5
9 March 2009
UNCLASSIFIED/FOUO

2. The UCP is the implementation of Title 10 authority
USC Title 10
USC Title 10, Sec 161:
Gives the President authority to establish combatant commands
Directs the Chairman to periodically review (not less often than every two years) the missions, responsibilities (including geographic boundaries), and force structure of each combatant command…
Recommend to the President, through the Secretary of Defense, any changes to such missions, responsibilities, and force structures as may be necessary
The Unified Command Plan is the vehicle by which this is accomplished
The UCP is the implementation of Title 10 authority
FOUO

3. Organization: Combatant Commands
PRESIDENT
Command
Communication
SecDef
Chairman
JCS
6 Geographic Commands
4 Functional Commands
This shows the operational chain of command in the U.S. Armed Forces; we also have an intertwined administrative chain of command that I will show shortly
While lines of command run down from the President and Secretary, the President may direct that lines of communication may also run through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from and to the combatant commanders. This is what the law or title 10 (code) says. The UCP, which I will talk about later, clarifies this Presidential direction that the lines of communication shall include the CJCS.
Example: orders going from the SecDef leave the NMCC, run by the Joint Staff, then released to the CCs.
CCs have missions or tasks assigned by the President or SecDef; Services fulfill broad and enduring purposes or roles
Note – Lt Gen Kehler is temporary CDRUSSTRATCOM
ADM Olson
Gen Mattis
Gen Renuart
GEN Craddock
ADM Stavridis US
Special Operations Command US
Joint Forces Command
US Northern Command
US European Command
US Southern Command
GEN Petraeus
ADM Keating
GEN Ward
Gen Chilton
Gen McNabb
US Central Command US
Pacific Command
US Africa Command US
Strategic Command US
Transportation Command
FOUO

4. Aligning the Combatant Commands
AFRICOM G E O R A P H I C J F C O M S O C M S T R A C O M T R A N S C O M
EUCOM
CENTCOM
NORTHCOM
PACOM
SOUTHCOM
This matrix tries to show that GCCs have responsibilities that cross the functional spectrum and that FCCs have responsibilities that cross all AORs
Along with the note on Services, there could also be a Service arrow that crosses the matrix diagonally.
The intersections of the matrix are potential friction points – the critical points where responsibilities and “lanes” must be clarified – and we are seeking to define and delineate these relationships.
UCP responsibilities must consider Service roles, e.g.
F U N C T I O N A L
DOD is a MATRIX organization that integrates
Geographically across functions for joint warfighting
Functionally across regions for global effectiveness
The keys to matrix organization success are:
Clear responsibilities and commensurate authorities ( the UCP)
Means to resolve priorities at the “intersections” ( “Synchronizing Planning”)
Effective coordination and communication ( SecDef, CJCS, CCDR-CCDR)
FOUO

5. Strategic Air Command
established as first
combatant command
under JCS control
History
-- PACOM, EUCOM, LANTCOM, and CARIBCOM with Service Chiefs as JCS Executive Agents
National Security Act
14 Dec 1946
1947
1952
Service Secretaries become
SecDef Executive Agents
1954
1958
Established USEUCOM
DOD Reorganization Act
- SECDEF Direction of CINCs
- CINCs Perform Missions
1962
Established STRICOM
1963
1972
STRICOM became REDCOM
CARIBCOM became SOUTHCOM
1980
RDJTF under REDCOM
Goldwater-Nichols Act
1983
RDJTF became CENTCOM
1985
Established TRANSCOM
1986
Established SPACECOM
Established STRATCOM
1987
This slide summarizes history of UCP as it has evolved since 1946
President Truman signed the first, the Outline Command Plan, in December of 1946, in fact the 58th birthday party is in 5 days.
SAC, which was already an element of the Air Corps, became the first combatant command reporting directly to the JCS on 14 Dec 46. Geographic combatant commanders quickly followed suit.
4 Highlights: NSA of 1947 established the position of Secretary of Defense and institutionalized JCS and Staff; for the first time it provided statutory basis for establishment of combatant commands
1953-strengthened civilian control of the military by transferring unified commands from JCS to SecDef; Ike makes Secretaries EAs in an effort to further strengthen civilian control over mil (campaign promise); could delegate to SVC Chfs
1958-Defense Reorganization Act-saw the end of Executive Agency and placed JCS back in operational chain; most importantly, it established new chain of command from NCA through the JCS to the Unified/Specified commanders
1986-G-N Reorganization Act-above all, increased authority of the combatant commands (by removing the JCS) and established COCOM authority
Fast Forward to 2004: there is a push for a major change now, one called “Beyond Goldwater-Nichols” (affectionately known as BGN)….with a focus on interagency reform…with enough traction maybe we’ll see something by the end of the decade.
It is interesting to note that first three decades focused on geographic combatant commands, altering boundaries between five principal areas of strategic importance. In the last fifteen years the focus has shifted to functional combatant commands, in recognition that some functions are better handled on a global basis, rather than regionally. Hence, Space Command, Special Operations Command, Transportation Command, Strategic Command and Joint Forces Command. Today, there is ongoing discussion as to whether the functional combatant commanders are gaining too much ground at the expense of the geographic combatant commanders; for example, STRATCOM’s Global strike mission could envision a scenario which crosses one or more AORs. There has been a lot of discussion lately whether or not these “functional” combatant commanders should be called functional or global.
Nunn-Cohen Act
Established SOCOM
1992
LANTCOM became USACOM
1993
USACOM / SOUTHCOM AOR Shift
1995
FSU Newly Independent
States Assigned
1998
1999
2002
USACOM became JFCOM
FOUO

6. All unsigned regions now assigned
History, last 6 years
Stand up NORTHCOM
All unsigned regions now assigned
2002
2002 Ch-1
2002 Ch-2
SPACECOM / STRATCOM merger
JFCOM purely functional
Lebanon and Syria to CENTCOM AOR
2002 Ch-3
Four new STRATCOM missions
- Strike
- Missile Defense
- IO
- C4ISR
Seychelles to CENTCOM AOR
2004
Requirement for establishing
SJFHQ-CE within each GCC
Designation of JFCOM as
Primary Joint Force Provider
Assigned Joint Concept
Development to JFCOM
This slide summarizes history of UCP as it has evolved since The point here is that the UCP changes as the needs of the nation and military change. It’s a living document.
President Truman signed the first, the Outline Command Plan, in December of 1946, in fact the 58th birthday party is in 5 days.
SAC, which was already an element of the Air Corps, became the first combatant command reporting directly to the JCS on 14 Dec 46. Geographic combatant commanders quickly followed suit.
4 Highlights: NSA of 1947 established the position of Secretary of Defense and institutionalized JCS and Staff; for the first time it provided statutory basis for establishment of combatant commands
1953-strengthened civilian control of the military by transferring unified commands from JCS to SecDef; Ike makes Secretaries EAs in an effort to further strengthen civilian control over mil (campaign promise); could delegate to SVC Chfs
1958-Defense Reorganization Act-saw the end of Executive Agency and placed JCS back in operational chain; most importantly, it established new chain of command from NCA through the JCS to the Unified/Specified commanders
1986-G-N Reorganization Act-above all, increased authority of the combatant commands (by removing the JCS) and established COCOM authority
Fast Forward to 2004: there is a push for a major change now, one called “Beyond Goldwater-Nichols” (affectionately known as BGN)….with a focus on interagency reform…with enough traction maybe we’ll see something by the end of the decade (this note was the thought a few years back, though IA reform is still discussed in many circles).
It is interesting to note that first three decades focused on geographic combatant commands, altering boundaries between five principal areas of strategic importance. In the last fifteen years the focus has shifted to functional combatant commands, in recognition that some functions are better handled on a global basis, rather than regionally. Hence, Space Command, Special Operations Command, Transportation Command, Strategic Command and Joint Forces Command. Today, there is ongoing discussion as to whether the functional combatant commanders are gaining too much ground at the expense of the geographic combatant commanders; for example, STRATCOM’s Global strike mission could envision a scenario which crosses one or more AORs. There has been a lot of discussion lately whether or not these “functional” combatant commanders should be called functional or global.
Designation of TRANSCOM
as Distribution Process Owner
Assigned SOCCOM lead in
combating terrorist networks
Alaskan and Caribbean boundary changes
Assigned STRATCOM lead
for CWMD efforts
2006
Designated SOCOM as SOF
Joint Force Provider
Assigned STRATCOM lead
for DOD Global Info Grid Ops
2008
Designated TRANSCOM as
Mobility Joint Force Provider
FOUO

7. UCP 2008 Foundation: 2006 “Bold Review”
Challenges
Missions
UCP02
UCP04
UCP06
Transnational Terrorism
CT Ops/ Global Strike/HD/BPC X
Interstate Coercion/Aggression
Conventional and Irregular Combat/Homeland Defense/Missile Defense
Cyber Espionage/Warfare
Global Network Ops/Information Operations
Space Operations
Space Control/Space Support/Force Enhancement
WMD Proliferation/Use
Combating WMD Efforts/Security Cooperation/Building Partnership Capacity
Pandemic Diseases
Pandemic Influenza Prevention and Containment
Regional Instability/Energy or Resource Disruption
Military Support to Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction/Security Cooperation/Building Partnership Capacity
Natural Disasters
Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief Preparation and Response
Additional UCP Emphasis on:
Interagency Planning and Execution
Coordinating across geographic seams
FOUO

8. UCP 2008 Broad Guidance Incorporate POTUS’ direction on AFRICOM
Establishment of command and responsibilities
AOR boundary shifts
Incorporate Select Bold Review Issues
Rewrite the UCP text, making it more user-friendly
Section for each combatant command
“Clean up” the language
Continue to examine emerging areas of interest (e.g., cyberspace, missile defense)
Define/clarify use of “synchronize” in the UCP
Review coordination across seams
Review recent changes and improve as necessary
FOUO

9. UCP 2008 Summary of Changes AFRICOM standup
AFRICOM/CENTCOM Maritime Boundary
Pandemic Influenza Mission (NORTHCOM)
SSTR, Humanitarian Assistance, and Disaster Relief Mission (all CCDRs)
UCP Format
Cyberspace Mission (STRATCOM)
Synchronizing Planning for:
Global Operations Against Terrorist Networks (SOCOM)
DOD Efforts in Support of the USG Response to Pandemic Influenza (NORTHCOM)
DOD CWMD Efforts (STRATCOM)
Global Missile Defense (STRATCOM)
Cyberspace Operations (STRATCOM)
FOUO

10. UCP 2008 Summary of Changes
Coordination Across Geographic AORs: Areas of Shared Interest
Water-Land Interface to 12 nm (GCCs)
NORTHCOM-SOUTHCOM Boundary
Civil Support vs. DSCA (NORTHCOM and PACOM)
Homeland Defense Mission (NORTHCOM)
Joint Force Enabler Mission Clarification (JFCOM)
Strategic Deterrence Mission Clarifications (STRATCOM)
Space Situational Awareness Mission (STRATCOM)
Force Protection Responsibility Clarification (FCCs)
FOUO

11. UCP 2008 Map
FOUO

12. UCP 2008 Stats Commenced JULY 2007 Completed 17 DEC 2008
6 formal rounds of GOFO coordination
14 OPSDEPS and JCS decision tanks
Informal OSD coordination throughout; status briefs provided to PDUSD(Policy)
Formal USD-level, COCOM, and Joint Chiefs coordination
50+ major issues addressed
Extensive, highly collaborative effort involving OSD, CCDRs, JDIRs, and Joint Chiefs
FOUO

13. UCP 2010 Review Phase “Zero” in progress
Set strategic direction
Articulate broad, guiding principles
UCP 2010 Business Rules in approval chain
“Issue Development Paper” vice CRM methodology
Conference-based forum
To be done:
Continue Transparency
Continue OSD coordination throughout
Identify/frame/communicate/review issues with stakeholders
FOUO

14. Back-Up

15. GCC Example - USCENTCOM UCP 2008 Language
(1) Detecting, deterring, and preventing attacks against the United States, its territories, possessions and bases, and employing appropriate force to defend the nation should deterrence fail.
(2) Carrying out assigned missions and tasks, and planning for and executing military operations as directed.
(3) Assigning tasks to and directing coordination among subordinate commands to ensure unified action.
(4) Maintaining the security of and carrying out force protection responsibilities for the command, including assigned or attached commands, forces, and assets. The commander is also responsible for exercising force protection responsibilities for all US military forces within the AOR (except DOD personnel for whom the chiefs of US diplomatic missions have security responsibilities by law or interagency agreement).
(5) Certifying the readiness of assigned headquarters staffs designated to perform as a JTF or functional component headquarters staff.
FOUO

16. GCC Example - USCENTCOM UCP 2008 Language
(6) Providing, as directed, trained and ready joint forces to other combatant commands.
(7) Planning, conducting, and assessing security cooperation activities.
(8) Planning and, as appropriate, conducting the evacuation and protection of US citizens and nationals and, in connection therewith, designated other persons, in support of their evacuation from threatened areas; and reviewing emergency action plans.
(9) Providing US military representation to international and US national agencies unless otherwise directed.
(10) Providing advice and assistance to chiefs of US diplomatic missions in negotiation of rights, authorizations, and facility arrangements required in support of US military missions.
(11) Providing the single point of contact on military matters within the AOR.
FOUO

17. GCC Example - USCENTCOM UCP 2008 Language
(12) Assuming combatant command of security assistance organizations in the event of war or an emergency that prevents control through normal channels or as directed.
(13) When directed, commanding US forces conducting peace or humanitarian relief operations, whether as a unilateral US action or as part of a multinational organization, or supporting US forces that have been placed under the authority, direction, or control of a multinational organization.
(14) Establishing and maintaining a standing joint force headquarters core element.
(15) Planning for and conducting military support to SSTR operations, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief, as directed.
(16) Planning for, supporting, and conducting the recovery of astronauts, space vehicles, space payloads, and objects, as directed.
FOUO

18. FCC Example - USSTRATCOM UCP 2008 Language
Specific Responsibilities:
(1) Strategic Deterrence. USSTRATCOM is the lead combatant commander for strategic deterrence planning and is responsible for:
(a) Executing strategic deterrence operations, as directed.
(b) Planning for nuclear operations, and as directed, employing nuclear forces.
(c) Advocating for nuclear capabilities.
(d) Supporting Service/Agency development of global nuclear command and control capabilities.
(e) Planning, executing, and assessing security cooperation activities that support strategic deterrence, in coordination with the geographic combatant commanders.
FOUO

19. FCC Example - USSTRATCOM UCP 2008 Language
Specific Responsibilities:
(3) Cyberspace Operations. USSTRATCOM is responsible for synchronizing planning for cyberspace operations, and will do so in coordination with other combatant commands, the Services, and appropriate US government agencies.* USSTRATCOM’s specific responsibilities include:
(a) Directing Global Information Grid operations and defense.
(b) Planning against designated cyberspace threats.
(c) Coordinating with other combatant commands and appropriate US government agencies prior to the generation of cyberspace effects that cross areas of responsibility.
(d) Providing military representation to US national agencies, US commercial entities, and international agencies for matters related to cyberspace, as directed.
(e) Advocating for cyberspace capabilities.
(f) Integrating theater security cooperation activities, deployments, and capabilities that support cyberspace operations, in coordination with the geographic combatant commanders, and making priority recommendations to the Secretary.
(g) Planning operational preparation of the environment (OPE), and as directed, executing OPE or synchronizing execution of OPE in coordination with the geographic combatant commanders.
(h) Executing cyberspace operations, as directed.
* CCDRs charged with synchronizing planning lead a global collaborative planning process that includes other CCDRs, Services, CSAs, and applicable Defense agencies and Field Activities in support of a designated global mission or campaign plan. The phrase “synchronizing planning” pertains specifically to planning efforts only and does not, by itself, convey authority to execute operations or direct execution of operations.
FOUO

20. Questions?