How many geographic combatant commanders are there

For example, the leader of SOCOM — who is in charge of an elite group of troops that are frequently deployed — felt the term was a disservice. Hyten said the functional command name caused issues during globally integrated exercises. Frank McKenzie at U. Central Command.

In the future, there may be five commands that need support at the same time, which can also act independently as well. The support command relationship is used by the defense secretary to establish and prioritize support between and among combatant commanders, and it is used by joint force commanders to establish support relationships between and among subordinate commanders.

In a war that integrates many domains, the supported and supporting commands may change depending on mission. Read more: Defense. The United States has used the combatant command structure since the end of World War II as a means of dividing areas of geographic and domain responsibility. The most recent is U. Space Command, which the U. That command is an effort to organize and advance space operations as the U. Scott Maucione is a defense reporter for Federal News Network and reports on human capital, workforce and the Defense Department at-large.

Follow smaucioneWFED. Each week, Defense Reporter Jared Serbu speaks with the managers of the federal government's largest department. Subscribe on PodcastOne or Apple Podcasts. Listen Live Schedule Sports. Artificial Intelligence. NAVCENT also serves as the command element for the Combined Maritime Forces, which is composed of naval forces from about 30 nations that are responsible for combating terrorism, piracy, illegal drug trafficking, and freedom of navigation and commerce in the region.

MARCENT provides Marine expeditionary forces capable of conducting a wide range of operations, offering the command a responsive and unique set of capabilities. Thank you for stating this. Your email address will not be published. The U. Skip to primary navigation Skip to main content Skip to primary sidebar Skip to footer Search this website.

Pin 1. Comments Robert M. Leave a Reply Cancel reply Your email address will not be published. This plan would cut down and realign the GCCs into three combatant commands, establish three regionally-focused military-interagency groups and revamp the functional commands.

In , Edward Marks from the Stimson Center proposed a standing joint force headquarters in place of the GCCs to handle the war planning and fighting mission, while the military engagement mission would be reassigned or broken up among various organizations in the interagency State Department and USAID or Department of Defense Joint Staff.

Meanwhile, at the other end, analysts at the CATO Institute recommended in that all the GCCs be dissolved completely and their core missions — war planning and fighting — be shifted to the Joint Staff. Alternatively, Lauren Fish from the Center for a New American Security advocated for a mission-oriented combatant command structure in November.

Whereas these proposals all fall on one part of the spectrum or another, the home and forward command construct takes a hybridized approach that integrates all three. This new construct appreciates the speed, agility, and whole-of-government response required in the new transregional threat environment.

In a hyper-globalized world, more is required than an archaic, regionally-siloed GCC construct rooted in the Truman era. This proposal prescribes that U.

The other five GCCs would be stood down or reduced to two-star or three-star commands along with a downsizing in staff and realignment of functions so as to focus strictly on military engagement programs and intelligence operations. Essentially, these new, reduced versions of the GCCs would act as sentinels for home and forward commands.

The two forward commands would focus solely on global and transregional war planning and fighting. When not deployed or executing missions, the forward commands would conduct training both stateside and abroad with allies, partners, and the interagency.

The forward commands rely on an open and flexible security architecture to face the various global threats, unlike the ad hoc and semi-permanent joint task forces stood up for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan or the extant subordinate unified or sub-unified commands, such as U.

Forces Korea and U. It is worth pointing out that sub-unified commands conduct operations on a continuing basis by direction of the secretary of defense in geographic areas or in functional roles such as U. Cyber Command under U.