ISSUE 182 : Jul/Aug - 2010 - Australian Defence Force Journal

Geographic Combatant Commands in the broader context ofUS foreign relationsIn developing their theatre security cooperation plans and activities, the GCCs must remaincognisant of the role that US military power plays within the broader context of US foreignpolicy. With this in mind, the UCP requires the geographic combatant commanders to coordinatetheir efforts with the heads of the US diplomatic missions in the countries within their AOR.The sheer size of the six GCC AORs, however, means that this coordination requirement canbe daunting. For example, PACOM’s AOR includes 42 foreign countries, of which 36 have a USdiplomatic mission or ambassador. AFRICOM’s AOR, while covering a geographically smallerarea, includes 53 foreign countries.The GCC’s task to coordinate their actions with the respective diplomatic missions iscomplicated by the fact that their AORs do not necessarily align with the geographic regionsby which the US State Department and National Security Council are organised. 26 Thesedifferent geographic boundaries and resultant organisational structures present the GCCs withsignificant challenges. 27 For ADF members having to work with and in these large and complexorganisations, it is important to appreciate these organisational differences. The ADF has hadseveral officers working in HQ PACOM and HQ CENTCOM for several years and has recentlyplaced a two-star officer in an operations billet in HQ CENTCOM.The difficulty in coordinating regional efforts between the State Department and GCCs iscomplicated even further by the myriad of other US government ‘players’, from the more than30 agencies that operate in overseas countries. US diplomatic missions host these agenciesbut the degree of coordination largely depends on the informal relationships developed withinthe country team. Even within the DoD, there is scope for friction and the need for significantcoordination. For instance, almost all US diplomatic missions have a defence attaché whois responsible not to the GCC but to the Defense Intelligence Agency. While a good degreeof informal liaison and coordination typically occurs between the defence attaché and therelevant GCC, their relationship is not formalised and the defence attaché is not able torepresent the geographic combatant commander within the US diplomatic mission. 28 For ADFmembers required to interact with GCCs and US defence attachés, this distinction is importantto understand.In light of the concerns that emerge from such complicated arrangements, some commentatorsargue that the US DoD organisational structure is better placed to work transnational andmultilateral security issues, and that GCCs should become regional multi-agency commands. 29Indeed, the composition of HQ AFRICOM seems to reflect a more expansive multi-agencyapproach. 30 Notwithstanding these challenges in managing inter-agency relations, the UCP andGCC structure is likely to remain a feature of the US DoD organisational landscape for sometime. For ADF members, an understanding of these issues is crucial in order to work effectivelywith our American allies in a multi-agency and multiple stakeholder environment.76