DOCSLIB.ORG

The Evolution of U.S. Military Policy from the Constitution to the Present, Volume III

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Evolution of U.S. Military Policy from the Constitution to the Present, Volume III C O R P O R A T I O N ELIZABETH TENCZA, ADAM GIVENS, MIRANDA PRIEBE The Evolution of U.S. Military Policy from the Constitution to the Present, Volume III Another World War and Cold War For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1995z3 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9867-2 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report documents research and analysis conducted as part of a project entitled “History of United States Military Policy from the Constitution to the Present,” spon- sored by the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-8, U.S Army. The purpose of this volume is to provide the Army with a history of the evolution of the major laws that govern the Army that were written between 1898 and 1940. This research was conducted within RAND Arroyo Center’s Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources Program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Corporation, is a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) sponsored by the United States Army. RAND operates under a “Federal-Wide Assurance” (FWA00003425) and com- plies with the Code of Federal Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects Under United States Law (45 CFR 46), also known as “the Common Rule,” as well as with the implementation guidance set forth in DoD Instruction 3216.02. As applicable, this compliance includes reviews and approvals by RAND’s Institutional Review Board (the Human Subjects Protection Committee) and by the U.S. Army. The views of sources utilized in this study are solely their own and do not represent the official policy or position of the U.S. Department of Defense or the U.S. government. iii Series Introduction The current institutional arrangement of the Army, which comprises a Regular Army and two reserve components—the Army National Guard of the United States and the U.S. Army Reserve—has been the same since 1940. As a result, a conventional wisdom has developed that this structure is appropriate to the time and unchangeable. When debating the Army’s size, appropriate roles and functions, and the laws required to authorize, empower, and govern the Army, U.S. policymakers often think about evo- lutionary institutional modifications and rarely question the underlying assumptions that led to this structure. It is easier to tinker with the existing Army than to consider fundamental changes to the Army’s statutory foundation. This four-volume history of U.S. military policy argues that little about the Army’s organization is unchangeable or constitutionally mandated, a fact that should give policymakers license to explore a wider range of options for the Army of the future.1 The National Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA), which Congress established as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2015, is a case in point.2 Congress gave the NCFA the mandate, among other things, to examine the assumptions behind the Army’s current size and force mix. Despite this mandate, the 1 Prominent American military historical surveys are Emory Upton, The Military Policy of the United States, 4th ed., Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1903, pp. 83–84; William Winthrop,Military Law and Precedents, Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, and Company, 1896; Marvin A. Kreidberg and Merton G. Henry, History of Military Mobilization in the United States Army, 1775–1945, Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army, 1955; Richard H. Kohn, Eagle and Sword: Federalists and the Creation of the Military Establishment in America, 1783–1802, New York: Free Press, 1975; Allan R. Millett, Peter Maslowski, and William B. Feis, For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607–2012, New York: Free Press, 2012; I. B. Holley, General John M. Palmer, Citizen Soldiers, and the Army of a Democracy, Westport, Conn.: Green- wood Press, 1982; Eilene Marie Slack Galloway, History of United States Military Policy on Reserve Forces, 1775– 1957, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957; Russell Frank Weigley, Towards an American Army: Military Thought from Washington to Marshall, New York: Columbia University Press, 1962; Russell Frank Weigley, History of the United States Army, New York: Macmillan, 1967; Russell Frank Weigley, The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy, New York: Macmillan, 1973; U.S. House of Representatives, Review of the Reserve Program: Hearing Before the Subcommittee No. 1 of the Committee on Armed Services, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 4–8, 18–21, 1957. A reference guide for the legislation behind the military policy can be found in Richard H. Kohn, The United States Military Under the Constitution of the United States, 1789–1989, New York: New York University Press, 1991. 2 Public Law 113-291, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, December 19, 2014. v vi The Evolution of U.S. Military Policy from the Constitution to the Present, Volume III NCFA elected not to reconsider the Army’s statutory authorities and responsibilities and instead focused on ways to refine and improve the existing force. The commission’s published report argued that the nation has “one Army” and a “traditional military policy” for sound “historical, cultural, legal, operational, and strategic” reasons.3 By using this phrasing, the NCFA reinforces the idea that a coherent and constant “tradi- tional military policy” has governed the Army from the earliest days of the Republic. The NCFA’s report offers 63 recommendations for such things as improving Army training and readiness, refining the mix of forces and capabilities, and improving per- sonnel management. Yet none of the 63 recommendations calls for a reconsideration of the fundamental laws that authorize, empower, and govern the Army, or the Army’s three-component construct. The notion of a coherent and constant traditional military policy stretching from the earliest days of the Republic to today is, however, a myth. U.S. military policy evolved substantially between the writing of the Constitution and 1940, and very little has changed since. Indeed, the term military policy was not used in the United States until the late 19th century, when Brevet Major-General Emory Upton introduced the term to Army thinkers. As used by Upton, the term military policy connoted matters pertaining to the U.S. Army, such as the laws that govern the institution and the poli- cies for wartime expansion. Today the term continues to refer to Army matters to the exclusion of the other Services. The term traditional military policy first appeared in the 1940 Selective Service Act. We highlight the etymology of the term to underline the fact that today’s military policy is not the result of a coherent tradition but rather the distillation of over two centuries of debates and compromises between various competing interests, many of which arguably reflected the political and cultural debates of the day at least as much as the need to meet the military requirements of the nation’s security. For each genera- tion since the writing of the Constitution, ideology, political culture, and institutional momentum have limited the discourse on military policy and constrained the range of options available for serious consideration. Indeed, the current force structure is strik- ingly different from anything the Framers of the Constitution imagined. Although the notion of doing so was once considered anathema, the United States now entrusts its national security in part to a standing, professional force—its Regular Army, aug- mented by two largely part-time yet highly professional standing reserve components. Once organized to defend a growing nation protected by two oceans, the U.S. Army today is postured to deploy globally on very short notice. One important example of how the use of the term traditional military policy can be misleading is the current Title 32 of the U.S. Code, which states that “In accordance with the traditional military policy of the United States, it is essential that the strength 3 National Commission on the Future of the Army, Report to the President and the Congress of the United States, Arlington, Va., January 28, 2016, p. 1. Series Introduction vii and organization of the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard as an inte- gral part of the first line of defenses of the United States be maintained and assured at all times.”4 Yet the National Guard’s role and status, and the laws governing it, have evolved considerably over time and cannot be regarded simply as a continuation of the 18th century method of producing military ground forces by “calling forth” various types of colonial militias, as the term traditional military policy implies.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stability and Arms Control in Europe: the Role of Military Forces Within a European Security System
    Stability and Arms Control in Europe: The Role of Military Forces within a European Security System A SIPRI Research Report Edited by Dr Gerhard Wachter, Lt-General (Rtd) and Dr Axel Krohn sipri Stockholm International Peace Research Institute July 1989 Copyright © 1989 SIPRI All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN 91-85114-50-2 Typeset and originated by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Printed and bound in Sweden by Ingeniörskopia Solna Abstract Wachter, G. and Krohn, A., eds, Stability and Arms Control in Europe: The Role of Military Forces within a European Security System, A SIPRI Research Report (SIPRI: Solna, Sweden, 1989), 113 pp. This report presents the outcome of a project which was initiated at SIPRI in 1987. It was supported by a grant from the Volkswagen Stiftung of the Federal Republic of Germany. The introductory chapter by the editors presents a scenario for a possible future European security system. Six essays by active NATO and WTO military officers focus on the role of military forces in such a system. Various approaches to the tasks and size of military forces in this regime of strict non-provocative defence are presented with the intent of providing new ideas for the debate on restructuring of forces in Europe. There are 3 maps, 7 tables and 11 figures. Sponsored by the Volkswagen Stiftung. Contents Preface vi Acknowledgements viii The role of military forces within a European security system 1 G.
    [Show full text]
  • Defense Primer: Reserve Forces
    Updated January 28, 2021 Defense Primer: Reserve Forces The term reserve component (RC) refers collectively to the passes from the governor of the affected units and seven individual reserve components of the Armed Forces. personnel to the President of the United States. Congress exercises authority over the reserve components under its constitutional authority “to raise and support Reserve Categories Armies,” “to provide and maintain a Navy,” and “to All reservists, whether they are in the Reserves or the provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the National Guard, are assigned to one of three major reserve Militia.... ” (Article I, Section 8) categories: the Ready Reserve, the Standby Reserve, or the Retired Reserve. There are seven reserve components: Ready Reserve Army National Guard The Ready Reserve is the primary manpower pool of the reserve components. Members of the Ready Reserve will Army Reserve usually be called to active duty before members of the Standby Reserve or the Retired Reserve. The Ready Navy Reserve Reserve is made up of three subcomponents: Marine Corps Reserve The Selected Reserve contains those units and individuals within the Ready Reserve designated as “so Air National Guard essential to initial wartime missions that they have priority over all other Reserves.” (DOD Instruction Air Force Reserve 1215.06.) Members of the Selected Reserve are generally required to perform one weekend of training Coast Guard Reserve each month and two weeks of training each year, although some may train more than this. When The purpose of these seven reserve components, as codified reservists are activated, they most frequently come from in law, is to “provide trained units and qualified persons this category.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Atomic Army, 1956-1960 Dissertation
    INTIMIDATING THE WORLD: THE UNITED STATES ATOMIC ARMY, 1956-1960 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Paul C. Jussel, B.A., M.M.A.S., M.S.S. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee Approved by Professor Allan R. Millett, Advisor Professor John R. Guilmartin __________________ Professor William R. Childs Advisor Department of History ABSTRACT The atomic bomb created a new military dynamic for the world in 1945. The bomb, if used properly, could replace the artillery fires and air-delivered bombs used to defeat the concentrated force of an enemy. The weapon provided the U.S. with an unparalleled advantage over the rest of the world, until the Soviet Union developed its own bomb by 1949 and symmetry in warfare returned. Soon, theories of warfare changed to reflect the belief that the best way to avoid the effects of the bomb was through dispersion of forces. Eventually, the American Army reorganized its divisions from the traditional three-unit organization to a new five-unit organization, dubbed pentomic by its Chief of Staff, General Maxwell D. Taylor. While atomic weapons certainly had an effect on Taylor’s reasoning to adopt the pentomic organization, the idea was not new in 1956; the Army hierarchy had been wrestling with restructuring since the end of World War II. Though the Korean War derailed the Army’s plans for the early fifties, it returned to the forefront under the Eisenhower Administration. The driving force behind reorganization in 1952 was not ii only the reoriented and reduced defense budget, but also the Army’s inroads to the atomic club, formerly the domain of only the Air Force and the Navy.
    [Show full text]
  • Rustin Military Collection
    Richard Rustin Military Books Donated 3 October 2009 THE RUSTIN MILITARY COLLECTION The Rustin Military Collection consists of nearly a thousand military books and periodicals collected by Richard E. Rustin during his lifetime. His wife, Ginette Rustin, donated this collection from his estate to the Archive Center and Genealogy Department, Indian River County Main Library, in October 2009 – April 2010. Richard E. Rustin passed away July, 2008. His wife considered him a genius regarding military history. He was a brilliant writer, a former reporter, manager and assistant chief of the New York news bureau. He edited coverage at the heart of the Wall Street Journal’s financial and economic news operations. He served in the U. S. Navy as an officer from 1956 to 1959. The focus of his collection centered on World War I and World War II. The collection also includes books on the Revolutionary War, Civil War, Mexican War, Korean War, and Viet Nam War, among others. Regimental histories and books of detailed campaigns, military science, military equipment and biography predominate. The library is very fortunate to have such a magnificent research collection containing many rare, out of print and hard to find volumes. It should be of great interest to anyone exploring military history. To date, the complete collection has been processed and is available to the public in the Genealogy Department. Use the online catalog at http://www.irclibrary.org or browse the list below. Title Author Publ Date 106th Cavalry Group in Europe J. P. Himmer Co. 1945 10th Royal Hussars in the Second World War 1939-45 Dawnay, D., etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of U.S. Military Policy from the Constitution to the Present
    C O R P O R A T I O N The Evolution of U.S. Military Policy from the Constitution to the Present Gian Gentile, Michael E. Linick, Michael Shurkin For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1759 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9786-6 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface Since the earliest days of the Republic, American political and military leaders have debated and refined the national approach to providing an Army to win the nation’s independence and provide for its defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
    [Show full text]
  • US Military Policy in the Middle East an Appraisal US Military Policy in the Middle East: an Appraisal
    Research Paper Micah Zenko US and Americas Programme | October 2018 US Military Policy in the Middle East An Appraisal US Military Policy in the Middle East: An Appraisal Contents Summary 2 1 Introduction 3 2 Domestic Academic and Political Debates 7 3 Enduring and Current Presence 11 4 Security Cooperation: Training, Advice and Weapons Sales 21 5 Military Policy Objectives in the Middle East 27 Conclusion 31 About the Author 33 Acknowledgments 34 1 | Chatham House US Military Policy in the Middle East: An Appraisal Summary • Despite significant financial expenditure and thousands of lives lost, the American military presence in the Middle East retains bipartisan US support and incurs remarkably little oversight or public debate. Key US activities in the region consist of weapons sales to allied governments, military-to-military training programmes, counterterrorism operations and long-term troop deployments. • The US military presence in the Middle East is the culmination of a common bargain with Middle Eastern governments: security cooperation and military assistance in exchange for US access to military bases in the region. As a result, the US has substantial influence in the Middle East and can project military power quickly. However, working with partners whose interests sometimes conflict with one another has occasionally harmed long-term US objectives. • Since 1980, when President Carter remarked that outside intervention in the interests of the US in the Middle East would be ‘repelled by any means necessary’, the US has maintained a permanent and significant military presence in the region. • Two main schools of thought – ‘offshore balancing’ and ‘forward engagement’ – characterize the debate over the US presence in the Middle East.
    [Show full text]
  • Lights and Shadows in George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia
    Paul Preston Lights and shadows in George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Preston, Paul (2017) Lights and shadows in George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. Bulletin of Spanish Studies. ISSN 1475-3820 DOI: 10.1080/14753820.2018.1388550 © 2017 The Author This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/85333/ Available in LSE Research Online: November 2017 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. Lights and Shadows in George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia PAUL PRESTON London School of Economics Despite its misleading title, Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia is almost certainly the most sold and most read book about the Spanish Civil War. It is a vivid and well-written account of some fragments of the war by an acute witness.
    [Show full text]
  • Officer Candidate Guide US Army National Guard
    Officer Candidate Guide May 2011 Officer Candidate Guide US Army National Guard May 2011 Officer Candidate Guide May 2011 Officer Candidate School, Reserve Component Summary. This pamphlet provides a guide for US Army National Guard Officer Candidate School students and cadre. Proponent and exception authority. The proponent of this pamphlet is the Commanding General, US Army Infantry School. The CG, USAIS has the authority to approve exceptions to this pamphlet that are consistent with controlling laws and regulations. The CG, USAIS may delegate this authority, in writing, to a division chief within the proponent agency in the grade of Colonel or the civilian equivalent. Intent. The intent of this pamphlet is to ensure that National Guard OCS Candidates nationwide share one common standard. It facilitates the cross-state and cross-TASS region boundary training of US Army officer candidates. Use of the term “States”. Unless otherwise stated, whenever the term “States” is used, it is referring to the CONUS States, Alaska, Hawaii, the US Virgin Islands, Territory of Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and District of Columbia. Supplementation. Local OCS programs may supplement this document in order to meet the needs of local SOPs and regulations, but they may not substantially modify any policy set forth in this document without written authorization from the proponent. Suggested improvements. Users are invited to send comments and suggested improvements on DA Form 2028 (Recommended Changes to Publications and Blank Forms) directly to the OCS SME, 200th Regiment, Fort McClellan, Alabama 36205. Distribution. This publication is available in electronic media only and is intended for all Reserve Component OCS cadre and students.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Policy and the Causes of War: Eight Hypotheses
    1 MIT / 17.42 / Causes and Prevention of War Stephen Van Evera MILITARY POLICY AND THE CAUSES OF WAR: EIGHT HYPOTHESES I. FIRST MOVE ADVANTAGE (or "crisis instability"). "The greater the advantage that accrues to the side mobilizing or striking first, the greater the risk of war." See Schelling, Arms and Influence, chapter 6 (assigned). A. When does it pay / not pay / to move (mobilize or strike) first? 1. The problem is two-sided. If you have a first-move advantage, it pays your opponent to move first just to deny you the first-move advantage. 2. First-strike vs. first-mobilization advantages. Both are dangerous. B. Dangers raised by a first-move advantage (FMA): 1. Opportunistic war. ("If we strike first we win, so let's strike and capture the benefits of winning!") Not a profound point but many analysts don't get beyond it. 2. Preemptive war. "We fear they will strike, so we must strike." Examples: Israel's 1967 attack on Egypt; Russia's 1914 mobilization. And two extensions: -- "Accidental War." Example: 1890 Battle of Wounded Knee. -- "The Reciprocal Fear of Surprise Attack"--Schelling. ("We fear they fear we fear they will strike; so they may strike; so we must.") This is the common formulation of the problem but the least realistic. History shows that reciprocal fear almost never happens, perhaps because states seldom see themselves as threats to others so they seldom expect others to fear them. 3. The Dangers of Candor--the most serious of these 3 risks. States conceal their grievances and their capabilities because they think: "we must lull them into believing we are weak and benign; otherwise we can't gain surprise." This makes inadvertent war and wars of false optimism more likely.
    [Show full text]
  • First Michigan Volunteer Infantry Regiment (Three Months) Receiving Its Colors from the Ladies of Detroit
    First Michigan – Three Months Volunteer Infantry Regiment “Thank God for Michigan!” It is confidently expected that the patriotic citizen soldiery of Michigan will promptly come forward to enlist in the cause of the Union, against which an extensive rebellion in arms exists, threatening the integrity and perpetuity of the government.1 Governor and Commander-in-Chief Austin Blair April 16, 1861 On April 12, 1861, the first guns of the Civil War were fired on Fort Sumter. On April 15, Governor Austin only three days later, Lincoln appealed to the “loyal” states for help in putting down the Blair rebellion, calling for 75,000 volunteers to serve for three months.2 Governor Austin Blair received the War Department’s telegram at his home in Jackson, advising him of Lincoln’s call to arms and informing him of Michigan’s quota: one regiment consisting of ten companies, or about 1,000 men. Governor Blair immediately left for Detroit to confer with the state’s Adjutant General, John Robertson.3 The problem: how to recruit, organize, arm, equip and train a regiment as quickly as possible. There were no funds for such an undertaking. Michigan’s treasury in 1861 was nearly depleted. Prominent business and civic leaders around the state stepped forward, pledging $80,000 in loans to get Michigan’s war effort started.4 On April 16, one day after receiving the War Department’s telegram, Governor Blair called for volunteers. The response was wildly enthusiastic, marked by a massive war Adjutant General John Robertson 1 First Michigan – Three Months Volunteer Infantry Regiment Ypsilanti Light Guard, the Marshall Light Guard and the Hardee Cadets— rendezvoused at Fort Wayne to drill and train.7 Colonel Frank W.
    [Show full text]
  • STRIKING FIRST – Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National
    THE ARTS This PDF document was made available CHILD POLICY from www.rand.org as a public service of CIVIL JUSTICE the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit NATIONAL SECURITY research organization providing POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY objective analysis and effective SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY solutions that address the challenges SUBSTANCE ABUSE facing the public and private sectors TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY around the world. TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. STRIKINGFIRST Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National Security Policy KARL P. MUELLER JASEN J. CASTILLO FORREST E. MORGAN NEGEEN PEGAHI BRIAN ROSEN Prepared for the United States Air Force Approved for public release; distribution unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003.
    [Show full text]
  • Main Command Post-Operational Detachments
    C O R P O R A T I O N Main Command Post- Operational Detachments (MCP-ODs) and Division Headquarters Readiness Stephen Dalzell, Christopher M. Schnaubelt, Michael E. Linick, Timothy R. Gulden, Lisa Pelled Colabella, Susan G. Straus, James Sladden, Rebecca Jensen, Matthew Olson, Amy Grace Donohue, Jaime L. Hastings, Hilary A. Reininger, Penelope Speed For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2615 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0225-7 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report documents research and analysis conducted as part of a project entitled Multi- Component Units and Division Headquarters Readiness sponsored by U.S.
    [Show full text]