The United States Defense Crisis Action System - Essay Example

?The United s Defense Crisis Action System The Crisis Action System adopted by the United s Defense Strategy is implied in the Crisis Action Planning Process adopted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1999, p. IX-15). The crisis action system framework is reproduced in Figure 1 of this work. Figure 1. Crisis Action Planning Process Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1999, p. IX-15 (Joint Publication 5-00.2) As suggested by the figure, commanders must regularly monitor their situation, assess their situation, and continuously and unendingly assess whether a crisis is developing or about to develop. The critical action system or the critical action planning process allows flexibility and time-sensitive decisions (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-15). This means, for example, that the sequences may not need to be strictly followed when so many lives are at stake or the situation does not allow for a complete identification of all the options available to the commander. The Joint Task Force (1999, p. IX-15) pointed out, “phases may be omitted or compressed in the interest of time criticality.” We identify some of the very important points of the crisis action system or planning process. First, in “situation development” or in the first action component, the 1999 document prescribes that the combatant commander must prepare an assessment of an event and must submit to the National Command Authorities (NCA) and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) his or her assessment of an event. In particular, the commander must report whether a potential problem exist and courses of action (COA) may be submitted, “depending on the time sensitivity of the situation” (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-15). Second, when a potential problem or crisis has been established (meaning: validated, confirmed, or affirmed by NCA, CJCS, and other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), a Joint Task Force has the prerogative to assume jurisdiction and make preparatory plans to commence the CAP or the critical action process (CAP). This implies that higher authorities have the prerogative to validate the reliability of reports and correctness or reliability of the commanders’ assessment and make an overall assessment of the situation. This also implies that the commander’s assessment must be taken in the light of the total picture or based on the intelligence reports submitted by all the other commanders or units/offices of the Defense Department. Third, the NCA, CJCS, and other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will have to analyze a situation whether a military option or solution should be prepared and whether the event should progress to the next levels or components of the critical action system (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-16). Fourth, a Joint Task Force, if established for the crisis or potential crisis, will “continue to monitor the situation and review any existing documentation (plans and area studies) pertaining to the area in question” (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-17). Fifth, in the course of action development, the NCA decision or CJCS planning directive will be implemented to develop military options (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-17). In this situation, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff may “transmit a warning order to the supported commander to commence preparations of COAs” or issue other types of directives (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-17). A supported commander is “the commander having primary responsibility for all aspects of a task assigned by the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan or other joint operation planning authority” (Department of Defense, 2012, p. 310). Sixth, the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) prepares deployment estimates based on the COAs (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-17). Actions involving exfiltration and deployment of counter-terrorist or CT forces will have to follow the procedure although it is highly likely that a fast-lane is available for actions involving quick decision and deployment. For example, the Joint Task Force (1999, p. IX-17) even prescribed that “when possible, USTRANSCOM or its representative should participate in the development of COAs.” The avenue presents a possible faster route for promoting timely decisions and actions: because the COAs are prepared with the participation of the USTRANSCOM, action and deployment/redeployment will be faster. Seventh, it is the NCA that selects the COA to be applied and that initiates execution planning. However, it is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) and other members of the JCS who “review and evaluate the COAs and prepare recommendations and advice for consideration by the NCA” (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-19). Eighth, on receipt of the NCA decision, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the approval of the US Secretary of Defense issues an alert order to the supported commander and other members of the Joint Planning and Execution Community identifying the course of action selected by the NCA and implements execution of the selected COA planning (Joint Task Force, 1999, IX-19). Ninth, the CJCS or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s alert order must contain sufficient detail to “allow the supported combatant commander to conduct detailed planning required to deploy forces” (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-20). Based on the alert order, the supported commander has to issue a directive like an alert or planning order for the Joint Task Force Commander or CJTF to start detailed execution planning (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-20). The detailed execution order that is approved by the NCA becomes the operation order or the OPORD (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-21). The clearances required for each phase in the implementation of the CAS or Crisis Action System are implied in the approving authority identified in each phase. For example, it is clear that clearances or approval USTRANSCOM and US Secretary of Defense are required in certain aspects of the CAS system or process. Tenth, the execution planning phase ends with the decision to implement an OPORD (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-21). Of course, the execution phase of the critical action system/planning process begins with the NCA approval of an OPORD (Joint Task Force, 1999, p. IX-22). In this phase, the CJTF issues to the JTF the execute order and the phase continues until the crisis is terminated. It may be important to stress that the phases from beginning to end of the CAS can be very fast by using all types of available electronic communication, satellite support, and video conferences. Thus, phases 1 to 6 of Figure 1 can be in a few minutes, hours, or days as needed in a specific type of crisis. Joint Task Force (1999) is affirmed by Joint Staff (2001b) and the latter says that the crisis action planning phases consist of situation development, crisis assessment, COA development, COA selection, execution planning, and execution (p. 2). The JOPES Manual “must be followed except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise” (Joint Staff, 2001b, p. 2). Joint Staff (2001a, p. 2) prescribed, however, that for multinational forces, “commanders of forces operating as part of a multinational (alliance or coalition) military command should follow multinational procedures ratified by the United States.” All the documents cited in this work are consistent with Joint Forces Staff College (2006) and are important in implementing the national security strategy---such as those reflected in Office of the U.S. President (2010) and more updated versions of the document. Provided a military action has been authorized by the President of the United States, a crisis may involve the preemptive deployment of forces against terrorists (United States Department of Justice, 2001). We must emphasize that the United States defense profession must always be on the alert for crisis because crisis is always a possibility given that irregular warfare, being unpredictable, has emerged as the dominant form of warfare (U.S. Armed Forces, 2009, p. x). References Department of Defense. (2012). Dictionary of military and associated terms. Joint Publication 1-02 (8 November 2010 as amended through 15 April 2012). Department of Defense: Joint Publication. Joint Forces Staff College. (2006). Crisis action planning. PowerPoint Slides. United States National Defense University: Joint Forces Staff College. Accessed 1 July 2012 from www.jfsc.ndu.edu Joint Staff. (2001a). Joint operation planning and execution system (JOPES). Volume 1. CJCSM 3122.01. Washington: Joint Staff. Accessed 1 July 2012 from http://reedline.com/Portal/Materials/CJCSM_3122.01_JOPES_Vol_1.pdf Joint Staff (2001b). Joint operation planning and execution system (JOPES). Volume III. CJCSM 3122.02B. Washington: Joint Staff. Joint Task Force. (1999). Joint Task Force planning guidance and procedures. Joint Pub 5-00.2. US Department of National Defense: Joint Task Force. Office of the U.S. President. (2010). National security strategy. Washington: Office of the U.S. President. U.S. Armed Forces. (2009). Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States. United States: U.S. Armed Forces. U.S. Department of Justice. (2001). The President’s constitutional authority to conduct military operations against terrorists and nations supporting them. Accessed 7 July 2012 from http://www.justice.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm Read More