DOD: Joint Staff should answer to Rumsfeld

UPI ^ | February 25, 2003 | By Pamela Hess

[Indy Pendance]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 (UPI) -- The four chiefs of the armed services have not been briefed on an apparent plan by the Pentagon's civilian leadership to examine cutting their terms of service from four years to two. Neither are they aware of a draft proposal to have the statutorily independent Joint Staff report to the office of the secretary of defense rather than just to the military, they told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

"We've not been briefed on the details of such a proposal," said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper, who together with the three service chiefs, the chairman and the vice chairman comprise the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The legislation causes concern on Capitol Hill, where members of Congress solicit independent advice and commentary from the services as a counterweight to the president's politically appointed civilian leadership at the Pentagon.

Moreover, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is expected to provide military assessments to the president. If the staff supporting the chairman is also beholden to the defense secretary, sources on Capitol Hill worry the chairman's independent, apolitical voice in the White House will be compromised.

According to the draft legislation -- a copy of which was obtained by United Press International -- the Pentagon has drawn up a series of changes it wants to see in the organization and chain of command at the Defense Department. Among them is a plan to have the Joint Staff, roughly 1,600 military personnel, answer not solely to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but also to the civilian secretary of defense.

It would also give the defense secretary unprecedented veto power over Joint Staff staffing decisions and allow the defense secretary to press members of the Joint Staff into duty in his office.

"I think these proposals, taken together or separately, would undermine the ability of the uniform military to provide independent military advice to the civilian leadership, to the executive branch and to Congress," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said at the hearing.

The Joint Staff was created to give the chairman of the Joint Chiefs independent military advice, separate from inter-service rivalry, which until the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act was extreme and often worked against overall military interests.

Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote in his book "My American Journey" that it was the lack of an independent and strong Joint Staff voice that kept the military from speaking out against the "deepening morass" of the Vietnam War.

Powell was one of the most powerful Joint Chiefs of Staff, using his direct influence over the president to help limit the 1991 Persian Gulf War to expelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait and not to pushing all the way to Baghdad.

Indeed, the draft legislation would explicitly excise a reference to the independence of the Joint Staff. One proposed change would strike the word "independently" from the following sentence in the law: "The secretary of defense shall ensure that the Joint Staff is independently organized and operated so that the Joint Staff supports the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ..."

The draft legislation would also repeal a limit on the number of staff serving the secretary of defense, now capped at 3,767.

That change directly contradicts an earlier edict from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. On Sept. 10, 2001, Rumsfeld announced his intention to cut 15 percent from all headquarters staffs in the military.

"We can take what I believe to be a very reasonable 15 percent cut in the tail, in the headquarters staffs, as opposed to our forces. And we've got a lot of people who want to do that. They recognize that these layers of bureaucracy here slow us down, make us less innovative," he said.

The Pentagon legislative proposal says the changes would consolidate duplicative functions in non-war fighting areas of the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff and "enhance the level of support" and "organizational learning" and possibly also save personnel costs.

The suggestion that the service chiefs should serve just two-year terms was rejected by the chiefs at the hearing. That proposal is contained in a memo written last fall by Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel David Chu.

The memo directs the civilian service secretaries to develop legislative and policy changes that would put the service chiefs in the same cycle as the chairman. The military service chiefs are not on the memo's distribution list.

The service chiefs are responsible for training and equipping their forces, and they say the effort needed to make the cumbersome acquisition system work and see their policies take hold requires a sustained time in office.

The chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs serve two-year terms, which can be extended to four years by the president. All of the officers must be appointed by the president, but because of their terms, they might serve for years under a president who did not select them.

"For a service chief, a longer-term perspective is helpful," said Army Chief of Staff Gen. Erik Shinseki, who is in his fourth year in the post. "And I think that the four-year term, at least for me, has been helpful in continuity."

"It seems to me that the experience gleaned in two-year assignments is not the best way to go," added Adm. Vern Clark, chief of Naval Operations.

[Indy Pendance]

Text: DOD-proposed changes to Joint Staff

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 (UPI) -- The following are the Defense Department's proposed changes to Title 10. The changes are included in parentheses and within quotes, according to the draft legislation and the text of Title 10.

Sect. 155

(a) Appointment of Officers to Joint Staff. - (1) There is a Joint Staff under the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Joint Staff assists the Chairman and, subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Chairman, the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in carrying out their responsibilities.

(Strike second sentence and insert: "The Joint Staff assists the secretary of defense, chairman and the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in carrying out their responsibilities.")

(2) Officers of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) assigned to serve on the Joint Staff shall be selected by the Chairman (add "with the approval of the secretary of defense") in approximately equal numbers from -

(A) the Army;

(B) the Navy and the Marine Corps; and

(C) the Air Force.

(3) Selection of officers of an armed force to serve on the Joint Staff shall be made by the Chairman from a list of officers submitted by the Secretary of the military department having jurisdiction over that armed force. Each officer whose name is submitted shall be among those officers considered to be the most outstanding officers of that armed force. The Chairman may specify the number of officers to be included on any such list.

(b) Director. - The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after consultation with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, may select an officer to serve as Director of the Joint Staff.

(c) Management of Joint Staff. - The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff manages the Joint Staff and the Director of the Joint Staff. (add "With the approval of the secretary of defense")the Joint Staff shall perform such duties as the Chairman prescribes and shall perform such duties under such procedures as the Chairman prescribes.

(d) Operation of Joint Staff. - The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Joint Staff is (strike "independently") independently organized and operated so that the Joint Staff supports the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in meeting the congressional purpose set forth in the last clause of section 2 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401) to provide -

(1) for the unified strategic direction of the combatant forces;

(2) for their operation under unified command; and (3) for their integration into an efficient team of land, naval, and air forces.

(e) Prohibition of Function as Armed Forces General Staff. - The Joint Staff shall not operate or be organized as an overall Armed Forces General Staff and shall have no executive authority. The Joint Staff may be organized and may operate along conventional staff lines.

(f) Tour of Duty of Joint Staff Officers. - (1) An officer who is assigned or detailed to permanent duty on the Joint Staff may not serve for a tour of duty of more than four years. However, such a tour of duty may be extended with the approval of the Secretary of Defense.

(2) In accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may suspend from duty and recommend the reassignment of any officer assigned to the Joint Staff. Upon receipt of such a recommendation, the Secretary concerned shall promptly reassign the officer.

(3) An officer completing a tour of duty with the Joint Staff may not be assigned or detailed to permanent duty on the Joint Staff within two years after relief from that duty except with the approval of the Secretary.

(4) Paragraphs (1) and (3) do not apply -

(A) in time of war; or

(B) during a national emergency declared by the President or Congress.

(g) Composition of Joint Staff. - (1) The Joint Staff is composed of all members of the armed forces and civilian employees assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the executive part of the Department of Defense to perform the functions and duties prescribed under subsections (a) and (c).

(2) The Joint Staff does not include members of the armed forces or civilian employees assigned or detailed to permanent duty in a military department.

Section 131 (c) Officers of the armed forces (add "including officers assigned to the Joint Staff") may be assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. However, the Secretary may not establish a military staff in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

Repeal entire section 143:

a) Permanent Limitation on OSD Personnel. - The number of OSD personnel may not exceed 3,767.

(b) OSD Personnel Defined. - For purposes of this section, the term ''OSD personnel'' means military and civilian personnel of the Department of Defense who are assigned to, or employed in, functions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (including Direct Support Activities of that Office and the Washington Headquarters Services of the Department of Defense).

(c) Limitation on Reassignment of Functions. - In carrying out reductions in the number of personnel assigned to, or employed in, the Office of the Secretary of Defense in order to comply with this section, the Secretary of Defense may not reassign functions solely in order to evade the requirements contained in this section.

[xzins]

It is absolutely critical, imho, to have the military free to speak their mind freely to someone without threat of retaliation OR hope for personal/institutional reward. ALWAYS we want them to give the BEST military advice they possibly can.

It is also absolutely critical, especially in a republic/democracy, for the military to answer ultimately to the civilian. They are so potentially powerful that the ability to subvert the system is extreme.

[only1percent]

All the way back in the Ford Administration, during Rumsfeld's first tour as Secretary of Defense, he developed "Rumsfeld's Rules," one of which was to preserve and enhance civilian administration of the military.

However, I'm a little mystified at some of the steps he's lately taken. He recently deprived theater commanding generals of their traditional titles of "Commander in Chief," on the purely symbolic grounds that only the President should have that title) and now these initiatives in the Joint Staff and JCS.

It seems like it is a solution in search of a problem.

Is Tommy Franks going to obey White House orders with more alacrity now that he's no longer CINCCENTCOM? And cutting the terms of the Chiefs (and presumably the Chairman and Vice Chairman) to two years is going to add even more churn in the three- and four-star ranks than there already is. An officer spends 30 or more years to get his third star, and even as it is has precious few years to actually bring about change or otherwise leverage his experience as a senior commander ... since there's nowhere to go from the JCS except retirement, cutting the terms may take away two of those critical few years in which to be a change agent, and deprive innovative leaders of the time that it takes to see through their initiatives.

[Siobhan]

It is absolutely critical, imho, to have the military free to speak their mind freely to someone without threat of retaliation OR hope for personal/institutional reward. ALWAYS we want them to give the BEST military advice they possibly can. It is also absolutely critical, especially in a republic/democracy, for the military to answer ultimately to the civilian. They are so potentially powerful that the ability to subvert the system is extreme.

On this, I agree with you entirely. Absolutely.