Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 128
Army Science and Technology for Homeland Security: Report 2 - C4ISR Appendix C Organizational Structure of the Army There are several ways to describe the organizational structure of the Army. For this report, the committee considered it important to highlight the unique component structure of the Army (which includes both active and reserve soldiers) and the makeup of the operational Army and the institutional Army. THE RESERVE COMPONENTS The organization of the U.S. Army for the majority of the 20th century and all of the post-Cold War era has consisted of three components—the active component and the two reserve components (the Army National Guard and the United States Army Reserve). Over time the mix of this total Army construct has been adjusted to best meet U.S. needs in the global community. The downsizing and restructuring after the Cold War changed the percentage of the force mix. As of September 30, 2003, the total ready reserve (Army National Guard and Army Reserve) stood at 683,256 members (Reserve Forces Almanac, 2004). At this same point, the total active force stood at 493,536 members (Uniformed Services Almanac, 2004). The ready reserve thus constitutes 58 percent of the total Army (ready reserve plus active Army). Few foresaw the pace and magnitude of change for the U.S. military associated with the fall of the Berlin Wall in December 1989. The size of the active Army has been reduced by over one-third since that time, yet the pace of operations throughout the world has increased significantly, and the resulting deployments have placed significant stress on the total Army. Reserve component soldiers in particular have experienced more frequent and longer deployments than they had during the Cold War era. These tours have resulted in increased
OCR for page 129
Army Science and Technology for Homeland Security: Report 2 - C4ISR pressure on them, their families, and their civilian employers. The force structure of the Army mix is being reviewed as this study is being conducted, and, while it is not the purpose of this report to make recommendations in this area, this situation is relevant because it underscores the need to use the country’s assets more efficiently and to ensure that the nation is getting the best return on its investment. The National Guard There are 50 states and 4 territories with National Guard units. Each state’s or territory’s Guard has both Army and Air Force components.1 Each Guard has both a federal and a state mission. As part of the federal force, the Army Guard augments the active Army. In its state role, the Army Guard works for the governor of the state and is frequently called on to respond to disasters. The adjutant general in each state or territory is the commander of the state Guard and he or she is directly responsible to the governor. The National Guard, because of its state mission, is usually the first of the Army components to be involved in responding to disasters. The committee recognizes the recent reorganization of National Guard assets at the state level and below by the chief of the National Guard Bureau and believes that this will ultimately assist the Department of Defense (DOD) in its efforts to provide support to emergency responders. No organization is better suited than the Army National Guard to provide that rapid assistance. This is not a new mission. The formation of the Guard in the 17th century was designed to protect the settlers in the New World, and the flexibility provided by its dual federal and state status, as well as the fact that there is an armory within 50 miles of 99 percent of the U.S. population, makes this reserve Army component a natural choice for emergency response assignments. The U.S. Army Reserve U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) elements are located in 962 locations across the United States and in U.S. territories, as well as in selected areas overseas. The force structure for the USAR is concentrated primarily in the combat service support area. USAR units provide specialized capabilities, particularly as military police and in civil matters involving civil affairs, signal communications, engineering, chemical operations, water purification, and so on. That such capabilities are very much in demand is evidenced by the fact that of the total number of soldiers who were forward deployed at the end of August 2003, more than one- 1 This report is concerned only with the Army Guard.
OCR for page 130
Army Science and Technology for Homeland Security: Report 2 - C4ISR third were USAR soldiers. This not only illustrates the critical role of the Army Reserve in enabling the Army to provide a full range of capabilities, but also underscores the increased reliance on reserve components as a full partner in performing many of the day-to-day missions for the U.S. Army. Military support to civilian authorities has always been a core competency of the USAR, which has a history of performing these functions. As a strictly federal force, the Army Reserves generally require a presidential declaration of emergency in order to be used to support civilian authorities. However, once made available, the critical USAR infrastructure has proved invaluable in assisting civilian emergency responders in times of crisis. Emergency planning liaison officers have interacted with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) personnel on many disaster responses and provide an existing coordination mechanism. In addition, the Army Reserve Network (ARNET), a network of communications systems throughout the United States, ties together the Army Reserve locations. It provides a means of transmitting voice, data, and video, and if combined with GuardNet (the parallel network of the National Guard) would most likely provide a secure backbone system of communications across the United States. A backbone system such as this, whether it uses GuardNet and ARNET or not, is absolutely critical to coordinating a national operational concept for emergency response. OPERATIONAL ARMY The operational Army consists primarily of tactical units organized around a divisional construct. The functional grouping and size of divisions have varied over time, with today’s division consisting of a mix of combat and support units totaling between 15,000 and 20,000 soldiers. Currently the operational Army has 10 divisions in the active component, 6 divisions in the National Guard, and a variety of other nondivisional units in all three components (i.e., the active Army, the National Guard, and the U.S. Army Reserve) that provide a full range of capabilities to the nation. These capabilities in turn provide a full range of options to the National Command Authority for combating the broad spectrum of threats present in a dangerous and unpredictable world. The operational Army is made up of all three components and conducts operations as required. INSTITUTIONAL ARMY Less well known than the operational Army, but equally important, is the institutional Army. It consists primarily of a recruiting command to supply personnel for the force, a training base for individuals, and a wholesale logistical system that is tailored to properly equip and sustain the Army. Linking the opera-
OCR for page 131
Army Science and Technology for Homeland Security: Report 2 - C4ISR tional Army and the institutional Army are a common doctrine2 and a concepts-based requirement system. CONCEPTS-BASED REQUIREMENT SYSTEM The Army determines the capabilities necessary to accomplish its missions by means of a concepts-based requirement system. This system looks at all missions, stated or implied, and determines the concept of operations necessary for Army units to accomplish the missions. This analysis, conducted by the United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, analyzes the Family of War Plans from the various combatant commanders, various forms of guidance received from the Joint Staff and the National Command Authority, and specific guidance provided by the Army leadership. The analysis defines a specific set of broad capabilities, such as the need to deploy the force, the need to fight and win the nation’s wars, the need to sustain the Army for periods of prolonged operation, and the need to reconstitute or change the Army. These broad mission areas can be broken down into units and individual requirements—which then determine the equipment, training, and sustainment packages necessary to provide ready capabilities. Assessing Readiness Readiness is then assessed primarily on the percentage of equipment fielded, the percentage of people available to a given unit, the status of training, and the quality of the sustainment package. A number of intangible factors are also involved in assessing readiness, and this aspect of the assessment is much more an art than a science. However, considering its recent performance in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. Army has done a good job not only of measuring readiness but also of preparing its units for a broad range of capabilities. Response to Terrorism A modified concept-based requirement system has direct applicability to the emergency responder community. Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil have ratcheted up the level and types of capabilities required for emergency responders. No longer can it be said that being able to deal with a natural disaster such as a hurricane or tornado is sufficient; such capabilities help, but they are not enough. The com- 2 Doctrine is, in football terms, the “playbook.” The common language associated with this doctrine allows for the execution of planned options as well as the ability to take advantage of opportunities based on “audibles at the line of scrimmage.” It has been perfected over decades and continues to serve the Army well.
OCR for page 132
Army Science and Technology for Homeland Security: Report 2 - C4ISR mittee believes that even an all-hazards, multidisciplinary approach to training, while a gigantic step in the right direction, is not going to be enough. It will serve as a good start, but the committee suggests that scenario-driven exercises involving chemical, biological, nuclear, and high-explosive attacks be used as a means of defining initial capabilities—with particular emphasis on identifying command-and-control capabilities gaps—for the emergency responder community. Future programs of exercises could be used to refine these capabilities and to assess levels of training. Once the needed capabilities are defined, the focus should be on providing these capabilities to the desired level and then improving on them through technology as required. The committee believes that through a system similar to the Army’s concept-based requirement system, the emergency responder community could greatly benefit from the work that the Army has done in harnessing the power of situation awareness in the area of command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) in filling many gaps and refining current capabilities. For example, information technology has enabled the Army to focus on answering three questions: (1) Where am I? (2) Where are my buddies? and (3) Where is the enemy? Accurately answering these questions is the primary task of the Army’s C4ISR system. Being able to answer them successfully in real time also promises a true revolution in the way operations are conducted. Although affordability issues will be involved and prioritization will be required, a system similar to the concept-based requirement system of the Army would greatly improve national preparedness. REFERENCES Reserve Forces Almanac. 2004. 2004 Reserve Forces Almanac. Falls Church, Va.: Uniformed Services Almanac, Inc. Uniformed Services Almanac. 2004. 2004 Uniformed Services Almanac. Falls Church, Va.: Uniformed Services Almanac, Inc.
Representative terms from entire chapter: