(U) 1956-1957 NORAD CONAD History.pdf - US Northern Command

UNCLASS FI D
i.l Navy, and 1 Marine; 83 were Air Force.In addition to the Air Foree
commander, all deputy chiefs of' staff were Air Force officers·. AI:). A:rTrry
general waS proposed for the chief of staff position.,
Both the Army and Navy component commanders objected to the proposed
size and composition of the CONAD staff. Lieutenant General
Stanley R. Mickelsen, (JoIIDILaIlding General of ARADCOM, said that while he
agreed with the need fgr a separate staff, he disagreed with the proposal
on three counts: .
5
(1) the size and rank structure of the staff; (2) stemming
from the first, the apparent intent to involve the CONAD
staff in details which are properly component cOIl1lmild re- .
sponsibilities; and (3) the assignment of almo$tall of the
key staff positions of responsibility to USAF 'officers.
~ ' ~ :
He added that he believed a small CONAD Headquarters was proper and
adequate for the task. But, he said, if the large staff was approved,
there should be adequate Army representation. " •••it is considered essential
that at least a few of the directors be Army officers, particularly
in view of the major contribution that AARACOM is making in the
CONUS air defense effort."9
....
) i· j"" ~. .
( -.
~ ..
)
In general, these were also the views of·; the Navy component.
Captain Dennis J. Sullivan, Acting COMNAVFORC'ONAD, stated that he did
not agree with the proposed staff' "in regard to total Size, rank
structure, assignment of key positions, or representation from the
services concerned."10 · Ilis estiJDate was that about 30 to 40 officers
were all that would be r~quired to perform~the CONAD function.
In April' 1956, CONAD sent its proposal for new terms of reference
which included separation of the headquarters and for the functions of
the separate headq~ters to the' JOS for approval (through the Chief of
Staff, USAF). In July, the latter advised CONAD that on 19 June 1956,
the Secretary of Defense. had reached a favorable deci~ion on the concept
of operational control and cOIIDILaIld relationships and for separation of
the headquarters as recomme~ by the JOS (see discussion next page).
USAF also advised that the join~staff had been directed to revise the
CONAD terms of reference.
CONAD sent £ts . proposal fqr manning of the headquarters to the JOS
on 6 August. · 'Ihe strength proposed -- a total of 357, includin~ 124
officers, 159 enlisted men, and 74 civilians --was essentially ,the same
as had been recommended by the joint study group in ~ch 1956. 12 The
UNCLASSIFIED
\ )
'-"
:-;..
,