Challenges Faced by Combatant Commands (COCOMs)

Challenges Faced by Combatant Commands (COCOMs)

            Combatant commands working closely with the Unified Command Plan (UCP) issues operational instructions and control to the military and impacts their training, provision of resources, and organization (Whitaker et al., 2016). The command can be classified into different branches depending on their military focus. The special authorities given to the US Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) provides an opportunity to sailors, special operations soldiers, and airmen to perform different and vital functions. The personnel in special operations faces different challenges.  It is challenging for the staff to maintain their capabilities in the postwar years since they lacked support (Watson, 2010). Notably, this happens during mission failure and the loss of equipment and life due to insufficient skills acquired during training. Sometimes the USSOCOM does not have the comprehensive procedures to pull off during a difficult mission. The capability gap was identified during most of their missions, and a change will be necessary for the future to overcome the challenge.

The United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) deals with nuclear weapons, and hence they are tasked to integrate space, cyber, nuclear, and conventional issues as a constituent of the strategic deterrent. The weapons under the possession of the command are old, and they are not very effective in deterring war in the modern world. The major challenge facing the command is cybersecurity during the defense of the military communications network (Seidule, & Whitt, 2015).  The advancement in computer and information technology globally is a threat to cyberspace, which can compromise national security.

The command has well-established procedures and relationships to oversee the protection of the networks belonging to the government.

The United States Transportation Command (USTRASCOM) is still focused on circumventing geographically isolated issues, and the future war will go beyond the regional boundaries. The commander has complained of the military attitude as the main challenge facing the command (Command, 2018). The attitude that soldiers have while pursuing war sometimes can fail a mission. The primary solution is for everyone involved in the command to change how they do things through becoming flexible, leverage speed, and range and must also avoid the disruptive influences. Cybersecurity is also an issue, but through a well-established military network, the challenge will be overcome easily (Geiger et al., 2016). USTRASCOM is assigned the responsibility of providing global mobility while maintaining peace during war. Workforce shortages hinder the ability to operate through different geographical locations. Getting the right personnel with the right skills is a common challenge, and this creates cybersecurity at the center of the challenges. The solution is to go ahead of the adversaries.

The United States Space Command (USSPACECOM) is a unified combatant assigned with the task for overall operations in the space. The command will lead all the space warfighting operations, which are likely to occur within the domain of space, electromagnetic spectrum, or terrestrial areas (Staheli et al., 2016). There are specific challenges that the command faces while delivering services to the nation. The capacities of threats to the US space are a concern that needs to be addressed. There are also threats from adversary space capabilities to the US military forces and growing and maintaining the security space programs for the nation together with circumventing pertinent space capabilities. The solution is to normalize the posture for warfighting by closely working with combatant commanders to integrate planning and capitalize on the ability of one another. The intelligence community and the military will be used so that the relationship is leveraged to maintain the command space.

References

Whitaker, S., Goirigolzarri, B., Getty, S., Pietz, J., Wilck, J., Martin, K., & Mindrup, F. (2016). An Optimization Approach to Balancing Risk and Cost in Combatant Command Capability Advocacy. Industrial and Systems Engineering Review, 4(1), 12-21. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Wilck/publication/306254708_An_Optimization_Approach_to_Balancing_Risk_and_Cost_in_Combatant_Command_Capability_Advocacy/links/57b4b6c808aede8a665a5a4c.pdf

Seidule, T., & Whitt, J. E. (2015). Stand Up and Fight! The Creation of US Security Organizations, 1942-2005. Army war college Carlisle barracks pa strategic studies institute.

Command, U. S. (2018). United States Southern Command: Command Strategy 2018. December.< http://www. South com. Mil.

Staheli, D., Mancuso, V. F., Leahy, M. J., & Kalke, M. M. (2016). Cloudbreak: answering the challenges of cyber command and control. Lincoln Laboratory Journal, 22(1). Retrieved from https://archive.ll.mit.edu/publications/journal/pdf/vol22_no1/22_1_5_Mancuso.pdf

Geiger, R., Barnes, T., Krustapentus, J., Putansu, S., Sutton, G., & Pendleton, J. H. (2016). Defense Headquarters: Geographic Combatant Commands Rely on Subordinate Commands for Mission Management and Execution (No. GAO-16-652R). US Government Accountability Office, Washington United States. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1014087.pdf

Watson, C. A. (2010). Combatant Commands: Origins, Structure, and Engagements: Origins, Structure, and Engagements. ABC-CLIO.