It's time for the Coast Guard commandant—soon to be Katrina-hardened Vice Admiral Thad Allen—to become a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
When President Bush tapped Vice Admiral Thad Alien a few weeks back to become the 23rd commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, the choice was widely viewed as a no-brainer. Just a few months earlier, the admiral was winning plaudits for his performance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the nation's worst natural disaster, as was the service he will take charge of on 25 May 2006. At the time, on national television, in a resounding vote of confidence, the president said, "Admiral Alien speaks for the administration." His elevation to the top Coast Guard post-coming in the wake of his service's extraordinary efforts in the Katrina impact area-makes this an appropriate moment to raise an old issue: Isn't it time for the commandant of the Coast Guard to become a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), at least when issues directly affecting the service are under discussion?
In this era of jointness among all five sister services, the American people might be surprised to learn that the commandant is not a member of the Joint Chiefs, even when Coast Guard matters are being debated. Moreover, they might well be perplexed by the weak arguments put forth in opposition in light of the reservoir of good will the Coast Guard has earned during its two-plus centuries as "America's Guardian of the Seas."
Unfortunately, expanding JCS membership to include the commandant, even in a limited role, has been stymied for the past 59 years, ever since passage of the National security Act of 1947. Ironically, this much-heralded piece of legislation, which formally established the Joint Chiefs, excluded as members the service chiefs of both the Marine Corps and Coast Guard. Major defense reform legislation during the intervening years, including the landmark Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, has not fully remedied this glaring omission. But laws can be changed, as the Marines and their supporters in Congress have amply demonstrated. In 1952, the Marine commandant was given co-equal status with the other chiefs when matters "of direct concern" to the Corps were at issue-essentially what I am proposing for the Coast Guard commandant-then full JCS membership in 1978. Today, of course, the JCS chairman, General Peter Pace, sports Marine green.
Parochialism, 20th-century stove-piped thinking, and phony turf battles are the chief culprits for failing to make this much-needed change in the status of the Coast Guard commandant. If JCS membership is specified in law for just four of the five of this nation's service chiefs, it must be a good thing, right? One would think there has to be some uber-reason to exclude the leader of the fifth and smallest branch of the U.S. military. But no, the arguments against expanding JCS membership are weak.
The Joint Staff's View
The leading voice in opposition comes from the JCS chairman's own staff. In an email from the Joint Staff's legislative affairs office to the author in May 2005, an array of arguments were advanced against including the commandant when Coast Guard issues were up for consideration. According to the Joint Staff:
1) While the Coast Guard provides numerous invaluable services to the nation and armed forces, there is no compelling reason to place the commandant of the Coast Guard in a co-equal status with the Joint Chiefs of Staff when Coast Guard matters are under discussion. Doing so would impinge upon CJCS authorities and responsibilities under Title 10 and would elevate the commandant of the Coast Guard within the Department of Defense while assigned to the Department of Homeland security.
2) The Commandant or his designated representatives are present when the Joint Chiefs of Staff meet to discuss issues related to the Coast Guard, including activities in support of the regional combatant commands. Coast Guard representatives participate fully in the Enhanced Planning Process and Coast Guard members are present throughout the Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. This process provides a direct conduit for information sharing and coordination and has worked remarkably well during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Unified Assistance, the operation to provide tsunami relief in Indonesia.
Ironically, the two arguments given by the Joint Staff actually strengthen the case for making the commandant a limited JCS member. How is it possible for any Coast Guard officer-or, for that matter, any Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps officer-to impinge upon the chairman's authorities and responsibilities under Title 10? As specified in 10 USC 151(b), the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the senior ranking member of the armed forces. Since the commandant or his designated representatives are already present at JCS meetings in the "Tank," what harm could possibly be done by upgrading the commandant's status from guest per CJCS instruction to that of statutory JCS member?
Compelling Reasons
The Joint Staff also makes the "no compelling reason" argument. No compelling reason? The Joint Staff really dropped the ball on this one. There is no shortage of compelling reasons. To name just a few:
By statute, "The Coast Guard, as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times (14 USC 1)," and "shall maintain a state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the Navy in time of war (14 USC 2)." Based on a reading of these statutes and the Coast Guard's extensive involvement in national defense and maritime homeland security, it seems reasonable for the commandant to have co-equal status with the other service chiefs who, according to 10 USC 151(b), are military advisers to the president, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense-two-thirds of whom are outside the Department of Defense.
The 1995 Memorandum of Agreement between DoD, the Department of Transportation, the Navy, and the Coast Guard set forth the appropriate use of Coast Guard capabilities and resources in support of five naval warfare mission areas. According to a 2004 Report to Congress on the Coast Guard's National Defense Mission, "these missions-maritime interception operations; domestic and expeditionary port operations/security and defense; theater security cooperation; military environmental response operations; and coastal sea control operations-are essential military tasks that may be performed by the Coast Guard as an element of joint and combined forces in peacetime, crisis, and war."
Coast Guard units, or ships of its predecessor, the Revenue Cutter Service, have seen combat in every war of the United States since 1790, including Operation Iraqi Freedom. Former CJCS Chairman and Secretary of State Colin Powell was right on target when he remarked during his tenure as chairman that, "The Coast Guard provides the National Command Authority with a unique instrument in the nation's security tool bag."
The National Defense Mission of the Coast Guard is required by 10 USC 118(d) to be reviewed in a comprehensive examination commonly known as the Quadrennial Defense Review. It is conducted every four years by the secretary of Defense in consultation with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Coast Guard's platforms and units most easily identified with its national defense mission are the 378-foot high-endurance cutters, 110-foot Island-class patrol boats, Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDET), and port security units (PSU).
The Coast Guard's extensive, ongoing interaction with DoD is a model for jointness. For example:
* The Coast Guard was the maritime component commander to Joint Task Force-Haiti under U.S. Southern Command in 2004.
* A Coast Guard flag officer currently serves as the deputy J-3 at the U.S. Northern Command.
* The Coast Guard's 17th District commander headquartered in Alaska is dual-hatted as the joint naval component commander for the Alaskan maritime region.
* Two Coast Guard flag officers are assigned as directors Joint Interagency Task Force-West (JIATF-West) and Joint Interagency Task Force-South (JIATF-South).
On this last item, "JIATF-West is Commander U.S. Pacific Command's (USPACOM) executive agent for Department of Defense (DoD) support to counterdrug initiatives in the USPACOM Area of Responsibility (AOR)," according to the U.S. Pacific Command's web site. JIATF-South performs a similar mission in the U.S. Southern Command's area of responsibility.
The Coast Guard has been designated the lead federal agency for maritime homeland security. According to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, the Department of Homeland Security Act of 2002 codified into law the following five homeland security missions for the Coast Guard: (1) ports, waterways, and coastal protection, (2) drug interdiction, (3) migrant interdiction, (4) defense readiness, and (5) other law enforcement activities. A look at these missions graphically illustrates the absurdity of excluding from the JCS the senior officer of the service branch assigned to perform these missions.
Congress the Key
If history serves as a guide, any proposal that would make the commandant a member of the JCS will most likely come from the legislative branch. As part of its constitutional duty "to provide for the common defense and make laws governing the land and naval forces of the United States," Congress has a successful track record of pushing defense reform legislation in the face of opposition from the executive branch. This was the case in 1986 with Goldwater-Nichols. The proposal outlined here should be as much a no-brainer as Admiral Alien's promotion to anyone serious about enhancing jointness or inter-agency cooperation. It threatens no one except turf-conscious bureaucrats trapped in the 20th century.
The Coast Guard is in store for an exciting four years with Admiral Alien at the helm. Hopefully the 23rd Coast Guard commandant will go where none of his predecessors have gone before, to a seat reserved for him at a table set for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Lieutenant (junior grade) Dolbow, a member of the Naval Institute's Editorial Board, is legislative director for U.S. Representative John Hostettler, an Indiana Republican.