The impediment of the decision-making process at the national level. Receipt of operational advice by the civilian leadership from a corporate body who, removed from the operational chain of command, would lack full awareness of support capabilities and would bear no responsibility for the readiness of the combatant forces. Usurpation of the statutory responsibilities of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In an effort to improve the current system, guidelines have been issued to define the functional, organizational, and operational relationships among all elements of the World-Wide Military Command and Control System (WWMCCS), and to set forth responsibilities of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in relation to this system. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have statutory responsibility to serve as the principal military advisers to the President and the Secretary of Defense. This function is recognized and has been interfaced with WWMCCS. Further, under WWMCCS, the Chiefs have responsibility to serve in the chain of operational command with respect to Unified and Specified Commands, to provide a channel of communication from the President and Secretary of Defense to Unified and Specified Commands. Changing the title of the Chief of Naval Operations to Chief of Staff of the Navy would serve no useful purpose and could create confusion by conveying the idea that major changes were being made in the Department of the Navy. Furthermore, this change would entail administrative costs which would be difficult to justify under the austere fiscal climate. The current Unified Command Plan gives the Commanders of Unified and Specified Commands maximum authority possible consistent with statutory requirements. This includes the authority to exercise operational command over all forces assigned to the command. The Unified Commanders have the authority to exercise those functions of command involving the control of assigned resources, composition of subordinate forces, assignment of tasks, designation of objectives, and full authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission of the command. In consonance with the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, each Military Department is responsible for the administration of the forces assigned by that department to the combatant commands. The Defense Department is operating under this system at the present time. Action has not been taken on the subject of redelegating the responsibilities related to civil disturbances to the Tactical Command since this command has not been established. In August 1971, as a separate action, however, the Department did reissue a Directive on the subject. This Directive established uniform DoD policies, assigned responsibilities, and furnished general guidance for utilizing DoD military and civilian personnel, facilities, equipment and supplies in support of civil disturbances. It improved the organization and clearly defined command relationships for the discharge of this Department's responsibilities relating to civil disturbances. It is current practice for the Joint Chiefs of Staff to solicit recommendations from the Unified Commanders concerning operational capabilities, objectives and allocations of force structure needed for the effective accomplishment of their missions. The Services and the Unified Commanders actively participate in the formation of the Joint Strategic Objectives Plan as well as short range operational planning. Moreover, the views of the commanders are also considered in the Force Structure Annual Manpower Review. JUSTIFICATION OF HEADQUARTERS REQUIREMENTS The CHAIRMAN. In addition, the committee would like to have specific justification for the requirement of headquarters of commanding chief of the U.S. naval forces in Europe and a discussion of the reasons why the functions of that headquarters cannot be carried out by either U.S. naval command for the Atlantic in Norfolk, Virginia or commander for the Mediterranean in Naples, Italy. Would you rather defer on that one? Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir. (The information follows:) The Commander in Chief U.S. Naval Forces, Europe, located in London, is the naval component commander of the unified command under the Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command. His mission is to conduct operations to ensure control of the seas and air in and around the U.S. European Command area and to provide forces (including administrative, logistic and planning support) to the Commander in Chief Europe and the Supreme Allied Commander Europe in order to support and assist in establishing control of contested areas in Europe. His forces include the Sixth Fleet and other U.S. Navy forces at sea and ashore in the European and Middle East areas. Additionally, Commander in Chief U.S. Naval Forces Europe has the area command of the U.S. Eastern Atlantic Command under the Atlantic Fleet Commander. This area is one of the most strategically important areas in the world. (Deleted). The sheer volume of this logistics task makes it necessary that the U.S. Navy, and the Atlantic Fleet Commander have an area commander in the United Kingdom who is on the spot, and immediately responsive to events in this area and who can fulfill wartime tasks in logistic support, anti-submarine warfare and offensive mining. Further Navy responsibilities include the provision of timely, (deleted) support (deleted) as senior U.S. naval commander in the Europe and Middle East areas he is responsible for coordination of all Navy components to achieve economy and efficiency. As such, he represents the Chief of Naval Operations for U.S. naval matters in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. His location in London is the ideal headquarters site for fulfillment of the integrated Naval Forces, Europe responsibilities. The above responsibilities of Commander in Chief U.S. Naval Force Europe/ U.S. Commander Eastern Atlantic emphasizes the requirement for the present location of his headquarters. In discussing the reasons why these functions cannot be assumed by the Atlantic Fleet Command in Norfolk, you will recall that Commander in Chief Atlantic Fleet is the naval component commander under the unified Atlantic Command. As such the Atlantic Fleet Commander provides forces to the Atlantic Command and the NATO Allied Command Atlantic. The primary mission of these forces during a NATO conflict is the successful reinforcement of resupply of U.S. forces in the Central Region of Europe from ports in the United States. [Deleted.] Through his type commanders, Commander in Chief Atlantic Fleet also directs the training and readiness of all Atlantic Fleet naval forces preparing for overseas movement from the U.S. to Europe, especially for peacetime operations with the United States Sixth Fleet. In addition, he has continuing responsibilities in the Atlantic and the Caribbean for surveillance of Soviet naval acitvities in these areas. These requrements are met with U.S. based forces. All of these functions are exercised from Commander in Chief Atlantic Fleet headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia. Few of these functions could be performed efficiently from any headquarters in Europe. Conversely. the assumption of the CINCUSNAVEUR funetion by CINCLANTFLT in Norfolk would be inefficient due to moving USCINCEUR's naval component commander so far from his area of geographic responsibility. The other aspect of your question is the assumption of the U.S. Naval Forces Europe functions by the U.S. Commander in the Mediterranean (Sixth Fleet commander). The Sixth Fleet command is primarily concerned with tactical naval operations and exercises designed to improve the combat effectiveness of his forces against the Soviet submarine, surface and air threat in the Mediterranean. For him to assume the Commander in Chief U.S. Naval Forces Europe functions would broaden the scope of his responsibilities beyond that normally assigned a combat commander and would not enhance the effectiveness of his command. [Deleted.] To be effective in a support role and to give credible assistance in the Northern Europe area, a naval headquarters presence is required in that region. In summary, the present headquarters located in London, provides a dual purpose staff for Commander in Chief U.S. Naval Forces Europe/U.S. Commander Eastern Atlantic in order to effectively accomplish their dual missions. These missions are the provision of naval forces to the European command and the maintaining of control of the sea lines of communication to Europe in strategic eastern portions of the Atlantic Command. BREAKDOWN OF HEADQUARTERS PERSONNEL The CHAIRMAN. The material submitted to the committee shows that each service has between 11,000 and 14,000 men in headquarters which are below the departmental level and above the level of division or corps. This comes to a total of nearly 40,000 men in these high-level headquarters. The committee would like to have a listing of each such headquarters, a description of its function and responsibilities, and the number of men assigned to each. The number of general officers and other officers by grade should also be listed as should the location of each such headquarters. I ask that in the form of a question and ask you to supply that for the record. Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir; I will. (The information follows:) HEADQUARTERS ACTIVITIES The accompanying list of headquarters and the manner in which they are categorized differs significantly from the Headquarters Activities information which is provided annually by OSD (Comptroller) to the Congress. Headquarters contained in this list which are also a part of the OSD (Comptroller) Headquarters categorization are indicated by a footnote containing a lower case letter. When a footnote appears after a headquarters category title in this list, all organizations in the associated category are in the same OSD (Comptroller) category. The OSD (Comptroller) Headquarters categories and their designators in this list of Headquarters are: (a) Department Level (c) Systems Command Headquarters (d) Major Command Headquarters (e) Naval District Headquarters (f) Unified Command Headquarters (not used in this list) The headquarters included herein are Service headquarters only. The number of Service personnel in Unified Headquarters and Defense and Federal Agencies is addressed in a separate response.1 HEADQUARTERS CATEGORIZATION Due to organizational differences between the Services, it is difficult to categorize organizations so that comparable responsibilities and functions are solely and entirely contained in the same category for all Services. The following categories are intended to show for all Services the illustrative relationship of organizations and is not necessarily the categorization system used by the Services. Each of the categories contains at least two echelons of organizations, as described below. Departmental Headquarters This category contains the organizations responsible for overall policy formulation, determination of resource requirements, allocation of resources, and long range planning of the Service programs. Contained herein are the Service secretariates and the staffs of the Service chiefs. Major Headquarters This category contains organizations which are responsible for the planning, resource management, and execution of operations for a primary mission (i.e., strategic operations) or a principal geographic area (i.e., Europe). Subsidiary headquarters of many of the major organizations are included in this category. This is done because they are primarily administrative rather than tactical (or deployable) in nature. Examples include: Theater and Field (Numbered) Armies, Fleet Commands and Force/Type Commands, AMC and Commodity Command, NAVMAT and Systems Command, AFLC and AMAS. Intermediate Headquarters This category contains organizations which are responsible for the direct operational control of tactical (deployable) units. These hearquarters are tactical (deployable) in nature and their location changes as subordinate units are relocated. Examples of the echelons included are: Army Corps and Divisions, Numbered Air Forces and Air Divisions, and Ship Squadrons and Ship Divisions. 1 Refer to insert to record, page 398, line 7, 15 February 1972. These numbers do not in all cases agree with previous information provided to the Committee. These numbers are based on more recent, and more complete information, than was previously available. Manpower data has been submitted to the Committee, which refers to the fiscal guidance category Command. The fiscal guidance category Command and the term Headquarters are not synonymous. Command includes administrative support activities (e.g., finance centers, data processing centers, personnel record centers, manpower in Defense and Federal agencies, etc.) as well as headquar ters. Also, not all headquarters are contained in Command (e.g., excluded are Army visions and corps). The following table shows the relationship of Command and Headquarters manning. The headquarters in the accompanying lists which are contained in the fiscal guidance category Command are preceded by the symbol (#). When this symbol precedes a headquarters category title, all organizations in the associated category are contained in the fiscal guidance category Command. 2 Refer to letter to Senator Stennis of 8 February 1972 from DATSD (Legislative Affairs). NOTE: Location Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. Fort Monmouth, New Jersey Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois Redstone Arsenal, Alabama Washington, D.C. Brooklyn, New York Oakland, California Fort Huachuca, Arizona Schofield Barracks, Hawaii Alexandria, Virginia Arlington, Virginia Fort Huachuca, Arizona Ent Air Force Base, Colorado Fort Richardson, Alaska Fort Clayton, Canal Zone Ent Air Force Base, Colorado Stewart AFB, New York Organizations preceded by an asterisk (*) are scheduled to be disestablished during FY 72 or FY 73. |