DOCSLIB.ORG

Operation and Maintenance Overview Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Estimates

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Operation and Maintenance Overview Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Estimates OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET ESTIMATES MARCH 2019 OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER) / CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW Page MAJOR ACTIVITIES – continued Page O&M Title Summary ...............................................................1 Facilities Sustainment, Repair & Modernization and Demolition Programs ........................................................101 APPROPRIATION HIGHLIGHTS Mobilization ...........................................................................109 Army ........................................................................................6 Training and Education ..........................................................114 Recruiting, Advertising, and Examining ...............................1 Navy .........................................................................................7 23 Command, Control, and Communications (C3) ....................127 Marine Corps ...........................................................................8 Transportation ........................................................................1 Air Force ..................................................................................9 31 Prisoner of War and Missing Personnel Affairs Space Force .............................................................................10 (POW/MIA) Programs….. ................................................135 Defense-Wide .........................................................................11 Reserve Forces ........................................................................13 OTHER DATA Cooperative Threat Reduction Program .................................21 Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Fund ..............28 Civilian Personnel ..................................................................137 Defense Health Program .........................................................29 Contract Services ...................................................................149 Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities ........................31 Active Force Military Personnel ............................................155 Environmental Programs ........................................................36 SOCOM Military Personnel ..................................................158 Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid ...................45 Selected Reserve and Guard Personnel ..................................159 Office of the Inspector General ...............................................46 General and Flag Officer Reduction Plan ..............................162 Support of International Sporting Competitions .....................47 Reforms and Major DoD Headquarters .................................166 DoD Customer Fuel Prices ....................................................174 MAJOR ACTIVITIES European Deterrence Initiative (EDI)………………………176 Overseas Cost Summary ........................................................ Land Forces .............................................................................48 179 Foreign Currency Fluctuation Rates ......................................183 Ship Operations .......................................................................55 Air Operations .........................................................................60 APPENDIX United States Special Operations Command ..........................74 Combatant Commands…………………………………….. .76 World Wide Web Address .....................................................184 Military Information Support Operations (MISO) .................78 M-1C Report ..........................................................................185 Depot Maintenance .................................................................80 O-1 Report .............................................................................225 Body Armor and Other Protective Gear .................................88 Civilian Personnel Costs (OP-8) ............................................313 Base Operations Support.........................................................94 Overseas Contingency Operations .........................................317 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Preparation of this report/study cost the Department of Defense a total of approximately $50,500 for the 2019 Fiscal Year. TABLE OF CONTENTS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TITLE SUMMARY O&M BY SERVICE BY APPROPRIATION $ in Millions FY 2018/1 FY 2019/2 FY 2020/3 Funding Summary Actual Enacted Estimate Army 74,519.4 75,083.2 77,413.8 Active 57,739.4 58,740.9 60,785.4 Reserve 2,914.7 2,828.4 3,066.7 National Guard 7,429.5 7,241.7 7,712.7 Afghanistan Security Forces Fund 4,666.8 4,920.0 4,804.0 Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund 1,769.0 1,352.2 1,045.0 Navy 62,502.2 62,551.5 68,187.9 Navy Active 53,003.8 53,377.8 57,687.4 Marine Corps Active 8,117.7 7,843.0 9,051.5 Navy Reserve 1,093.7 1,055.4 1,148.2 Marine Corps Reserve 287.1 275.3 300.8 Air Force 61,016.8 60,253.0 64,710.4 Active 50,889.7 50,481.5 54,307.2 Reserve 3,234.7 3,286.2 3,426.6 National Guard 6,892.4 6,485.3 6,904.1 Space Force - - 72.4 Defense-Wide and Other 75,857.4 82,760.6 82,521.4 Defense-Wide 41,260.0 44,792.1 45,848.0 Defense Health Program4 33,723.6 34,368.3 33,346.4 Numbers may not add due to rounding 1 FY 2018 includes Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding 2 FY 2019 does not reflect $1,717.4 million of prior year recissions. 3 FY 2020 includes $134,684.8 million of OCO funding for Direct War costs, Enduring OCO requirements, and OCO for Base requirements 4 Includes transfers to the Department of Veterans Affairs of $128 million in FY 2019 and $142 million in FY 2020 5 FY 2018 Environmental Restoration and Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense accounts were executed in FY 2018 Operation and Maintenance accounts OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TITLE SUMMARY 1 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TITLE SUMMARY O&M TOTAL BUDGET AUTHORITY BY SERVICE BY APPROPRIATION/1/2 $ in Millions FY 2018/3 FY 2019/4 FY 2020/5 Funding Summary Actual Enacted Estimate Cooperative Threat Reduction 350.0 350.2 338.7 Office of the Inspector General 337.5 354.0 387.8 Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster Assistance and Civic Aid 129.9 117.7 108.6 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 14.5 14.7 14.8 DoD Acquisition Workforce Development Fund 0.0 450.0 400.0 Environmental Restoration, Army/5 0.0 235.8 207.5 Environmental Restoration, Navy/5 0.0 365.9 335.9 Environmental Restoration, Air Force/5 0.0 365.8 302.7 Environmental Restoration, Defense/5 0.0 19.0 9.1 Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS)/5 0.0 248.7 216.5 Drug Interdiction And Counter-Drug Activities, Defense/5 0.0 1,034.6 963.0 International Sporting Competitions 1.3 0.0 0.0 Disposal of Real Property 7.6 7.7 8.1 Lease of Real Property 33.1 36.2 34.4 Total 273,895.8 280,648.4 292,833.5 The FY 2020 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) programs are driven by the National Defense Strategy. The budget decisions reflected in the subsequent exhibits in the O&M Overview Book fund a joint force in FY 2020 with the capacity and capability to: • Achieve success in competition with China and Russia, which is currently a central challenge to U.S. security – Deter aggression and maintain favorable balances of power in key regions – Prioritize preparedness for war and expand competitive space • Sustain efforts to deter and counter Iran, North Korea, and terrorists – Prevent or deter state adversaries and non-state actors from acquiring, proliferating, or using weapons of mass destruction – Prevent terrorists from directing or supporting external operations against U.S., allies and partners overseas • Continue three lines of efforts to enable U.S. to remain world’s preeminent fighting force: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TITLE SUMMARY 2 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE TITLE SUMMARY – Build a more lethal Joint Force – Strengthen alliances as we attract new partners – Reform the Department’s business practices for greater performance and affordability The FY 2020 O&M programs continues the path to achieving full spectrum readiness across the Joint Force and advances the Department’s multi-pronged, multi-year approach to build a more lethal and ready force with targeted investments in training, equipment, maintenance, munitions, modernization and infrastructure. The FY 2020 programs support Combatant Command exercises and engagements to increase joint training capabilities, reassure allies, and provide U.S. presence. The FY 2020 Army programs support increased home station training and additional high-end collective training exercises, resulting in 20 combat training center rotations in 2020 and an expected overall training proficiency of BCT-level. The total Army end strength grows modestly to fill critical personnel gaps and grow force structure. The FY 2020 Navy programs focus on modernization efforts to improve throughput at our naval shipyards and reduce lost operational days due to maintenance overruns. In order to close capability and capacity gaps and to pursue advanced and disruptive technologies, ship maintenance efforts increase, including improvements in the planning process and continuing to build workforce capacity in the Naval Shipyards, and aviation readiness efforts to include increases in engineering and program-related logistics to speed the repair process and also increase the workforce at Aviation Depots. The FY 2020 Marine Corps programs grow an additional 100 Marines and funds continued efforts to enhance field logistics
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2014 Ships and Submarines of the United States Navy
    AIRCRAFT CARRIER DDG 1000 AMPHIBIOUS Multi-Purpose Aircraft Carrier (Nuclear-Propulsion) THE U.S. NAvy’s next-GENERATION MULTI-MISSION DESTROYER Amphibious Assault Ship Gerald R. Ford Class CVN Tarawa Class LHA Gerald R. Ford CVN-78 USS Peleliu LHA-5 John F. Kennedy CVN-79 Enterprise CVN-80 Nimitz Class CVN Wasp Class LHD USS Wasp LHD-1 USS Bataan LHD-5 USS Nimitz CVN-68 USS Abraham Lincoln CVN-72 USS Harry S. Truman CVN-75 USS Essex LHD-2 USS Bonhomme Richard LHD-6 USS Dwight D. Eisenhower CVN-69 USS George Washington CVN-73 USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76 USS Kearsarge LHD-3 USS Iwo Jima LHD-7 USS Carl Vinson CVN-70 USS John C. Stennis CVN-74 USS George H.W. Bush CVN-77 USS Boxer LHD-4 USS Makin Island LHD-8 USS Theodore Roosevelt CVN-71 SUBMARINE Submarine (Nuclear-Powered) America Class LHA America LHA-6 SURFACE COMBATANT Los Angeles Class SSN Tripoli LHA-7 USS Bremerton SSN-698 USS Pittsburgh SSN-720 USS Albany SSN-753 USS Santa Fe SSN-763 Guided Missile Cruiser USS Jacksonville SSN-699 USS Chicago SSN-721 USS Topeka SSN-754 USS Boise SSN-764 USS Dallas SSN-700 USS Key West SSN-722 USS Scranton SSN-756 USS Montpelier SSN-765 USS La Jolla SSN-701 USS Oklahoma City SSN-723 USS Alexandria SSN-757 USS Charlotte SSN-766 Ticonderoga Class CG USS City of Corpus Christi SSN-705 USS Louisville SSN-724 USS Asheville SSN-758 USS Hampton SSN-767 USS Albuquerque SSN-706 USS Helena SSN-725 USS Jefferson City SSN-759 USS Hartford SSN-768 USS Bunker Hill CG-52 USS Princeton CG-59 USS Gettysburg CG-64 USS Lake Erie CG-70 USS San Francisco SSN-711 USS Newport News SSN-750 USS Annapolis SSN-760 USS Toledo SSN-769 USS Mobile Bay CG-53 USS Normandy CG-60 USS Chosin CG-65 USS Cape St.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision-Making Process in Combat Operations
    DECISION-MAKING PROCESS IN MILITARY COMBAT OPERATIONS 4120/002 10.2013 2000 10.2013 4120/002 International Committee of the Red Cross 19, avenue de la Paix 1202 Geneva, Switzerland T +41 22 734 60 01 F +41 22 733 20 57 E-mail: [email protected] www.icrc.org © ICRC, October 2013 DECISION-MAKING PROCESS IN MILITARY COMBAT OPERATIONS PREFACE Every state has an obligation to ensure respect for the law of armed conflict. The ICRC is mandated to support states in these efforts and does so through a range of activities, including promoting the integration of appropriate com- pliance measures into military doctrine, education, training and sanctions, with a view to ensuring that behaviours of those engaged in armed conflict comply with the law. The present note is designed to support the integration of the Law of Armed Conflict into military decision-making processes, primarily at the operational level. It is not based on any specific national doctrine. It is designed to support those responsible for developing national doctrine and operational planning procedures in their efforts to integrate the Law of Armed Conflict into military practice. The desired outcome is staff procedures which ensure the development of military plans and orders that accurately and effectively integrate compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict into operational practice, thereby reducing the effects of armed conflict on those who do not, or no longer, participate in the hostilities. The techniques of warfare change rapidly, particularly at times when combat operations are commonplace. The humanitarian impact of conflict is timeless. The Law of Armed Conflict is designed to limit the humanitarian consequences of war.
    [Show full text]
  • Blitzkrieg: the Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht's
    East Tennessee State University Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University Electronic Theses and Dissertations Student Works 8-2021 Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era Briggs Evans East Tennessee State University Follow this and additional works at: https://dc.etsu.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Evans, Briggs, "Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era" (2021). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 3927. https://dc.etsu.edu/etd/3927 This Thesis - unrestricted is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Works at Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ East Tennessee State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era ________________________ A thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of History East Tennessee State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in History ______________________ by Briggs Evans August 2021 _____________________ Dr. Stephen Fritz, Chair Dr. Henry Antkiewicz Dr. Steve Nash Keywords: Blitzkrieg, doctrine, operational warfare, American military, Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, World War II, Cold War, Soviet Union, Operation Desert Storm, AirLand Battle, Combined Arms Theory, mobile warfare, maneuver warfare. ABSTRACT Blitzkrieg: The Evolution of Modern Warfare and the Wehrmacht’s Impact on American Military Doctrine during the Cold War Era by Briggs Evans The evolution of United States military doctrine was heavily influenced by the Wehrmacht and their early Blitzkrieg campaigns during World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics
    American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Updated July 29, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL32492 American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Summary This report provides U.S. war casualty statistics. It includes data tables containing the number of casualties among American military personnel who served in principal wars and combat operations from 1775 to the present. It also includes data on those wounded in action and information such as race and ethnicity, gender, branch of service, and cause of death. The tables are compiled from various Department of Defense (DOD) sources. Wars covered include the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam Conflict, and the Persian Gulf War. Military operations covered include the Iranian Hostage Rescue Mission; Lebanon Peacekeeping; Urgent Fury in Grenada; Just Cause in Panama; Desert Shield and Desert Storm; Restore Hope in Somalia; Uphold Democracy in Haiti; Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF); Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF); Operation New Dawn (OND); Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR); and Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS). Starting with the Korean War and the more recent conflicts, this report includes additional detailed information on types of casualties and, when available, demographics. It also cites a number of resources for further information, including sources of historical statistics on active duty military deaths, published lists of military personnel killed in combat actions, data on demographic indicators among U.S. military personnel, related websites, and relevant CRS reports. Congressional Research Service American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Amphibious Warfare: Theory and Practice* Tomoyuki Ishizu
    Amphibious Warfare: Theory and Practice* Tomoyuki Ishizu Introduction In December 2013, the Government of Japan released its first “National Security Strategy” and announced the “National Defense Program Guidelines for FY 2014 and beyond.” The new Guidelines set forth the buildup of “dynamic joint defense force,” calling for a sufficient amphibious operations capability by means of amphibious vehicles and tilt-rotor aircraft, for example, to cope with potential enemy attack against any of Japan’s remote islands. This paper analyzes amphibious warfare from a historical viewpoint to show its major framework and concept. It is no wonder that the scale and form of amphibious operations may differ significantly among states depending on their national strategy, status of military power in the national strategy, military objectives, and historical or geographical conditions. The reason is that the national strategy, which is prescribed according to the national history, geography, culture and more, determines the role of the nation’s military force and way of fighting. With all these facts taken into account, this paper attempts to propose a general framework for examining amphibious warfare, especially for amphibious operations, and to sort out ideas and terms used in such operations. 1. What are Amphibious Operations? (1) The issues surrounding their definition The first issue that one inevitably encounters in examining amphibious operations is the ambiguity surrounding their definition. Without a uniform understanding of the meaning of amphibious operations and of their associated concepts and terminologies, the actual execution of operations will likely be met with difficulties. Nevertheless, a uniform understanding or a “common language” for the associated concepts and terminologies has not been arrived at, not even in the United States, which has conducted many amphibious operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force World by Autumn A
    Air Force World By Autumn A. Arnett, Associate Editor House Passes Fiscal 2015 Defense Spending Bill Langley-Eustis, Va. Carlisle has served as commander of The House approved HR 4870, its version of the Fiscal Pacifi c Air Forces at JB Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, since 2015 defense spending bill, June 20, providing $491 bil- August 2012. lion in discretionary funding and $79.4 billion for overseas Obama also on July 15 nominated Lt. Gen. Lori J. Robinson contingency operations, including the war in Afghanistan. for a fourth star and for assignment as commander of Pacifi c Air Among the Air Force-related amendments adopted on Forces. She has been ACC vice commander since May 2013. the House fl oor is one introduced by Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.) that blocked the Air Force from using Fiscal 2015 funds to divest, retire, transfer, or place into storage any A-10 aircraft or to dissolve any A-10 units. An amendment brought forth by Rep. Jon Runyan (R-N.J.) that prohibits KC-10 retirements in Fiscal 2015 also passed. The House in May passed its version of the Fiscal 2015 screenshot defense authorization bill, which also prevents divestiture of the A-10 fl eet. Medal of Honor Awarded to Marine President Barack Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to retired Marine Corps Cpl. William “Kyle” Carpenter, 24, on June 19 for his conspicuous gallantry during a 2010 battle in Afghanistan where he was seriously injured. “Anybody who has had a chance to get to know this young man knows you’re not going to get a better example of what you want in an American or a marine,” said Obama during the White House ceremony.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Force by Military Components in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations
    UNCLASSIFIED United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations/ Department of Field Support Ref: 2016.24 Guidelines January 2017 Use of Force by Military Components in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations Approved by: Hervé Ladsous, USG DPKO; Atul Khare, USG DFS Effective date: 01 February 2017 Contact: Office of Military Affairs, DPKO Review date: 01 February 2020 1 UNCLASSIFIED DPKO/DFS Guidelines: Use of Force by Military Components in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations CONTENTS A. Purpose B. Scope C. Rationale D. Guidelines D.1 Definition D.2 Use of Force Principles and Authorization D.3 Alternatives to the Use of Force D.4 Graduated Application and the Use of Force Continuum D.5 Strategic Level Considerations D.6 Operational Level Considerations D.7 Tactical Level Considerations D.8 Decision Factors and Risk Management D.9 Training E. Terms and Definitions F. References G. Monitoring and Compliance H. Contact I. History ANNEXES A. Possible Scenarios for the Use of Force B. Matrix of Indicators and Possible Tasks A. PURPOSE 1. This document is intended to provide clarity in the appropriate use of force at the tactical and operational levels of United Nations peacekeeping missions. 2. Clarity in the appropriate use of force is vital to a United Nations mission’s military personnel confronted by the full spectrum of complex peacekeeping challenges. It is equally important 2 UNCLASSIFIED to troop contributing countries (TCCs) providing peacekeeping military contingents. These guidelines are intended to mitigate hesitation, accelerate decision making, improve performance and ultimately protect lives and property. B. SCOPE 3. These guidelines briefly highlight the strategic considerations that guide, oversee and provide the resources for the operational and tactical use of force.
    [Show full text]
  • Defense Primer: 75Th Anniversary of D-Day, June 6, 1944
    May 28, 2019 Defense Primer: 75th Anniversary of D-Day, June 6, 1944 June 6, 2019, marks the 75th anniversary of the historic manned by Germans), as the main barrier to the invasion amphibious landing by Allied Forces on the coast of force. Allied leaders initially set June 5, 1944, as D-Day but Normandy, France, on June 6, 1944, during World War II on the morning of June 4, stormy weather over the English (1939-1945). D-Day marked the beginning of the Allied Channel forced Gen. Eisenhower to postpone the attack for campaign to liberate Europe from Nazi Germany. 24 hours to June 6 when a break in the weather was expected. Operation NEPTUNE was the code name given What is the “D” in D-Day? to the seaborne assault phase. See Figure 1. The “D” in D-Day is the designation for the first day of any important invasion or military operation. The days before Allied Landings on June 6, 1944 and after a D-Day are indicated using minus and plus signs, Before dawn on June 6, 1944, 13,000 paratroopers from (i.e., D-1 means one day before (June 5) while D+7 means three airborne divisions—the U.S. 82nd and 101st and the seven days after D-Day (June 13)). British 6th—parachuted and landed by glider behind targeted beaches. See Figure 2. Over 1,200 aircraft were D-Day Preparation and Operations used in the pre-landing drop. Allied naval forces, including At the Tehran Conference in August 1943, Allied leaders the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force World by Amy Mccullough, News Editor
    Air Force World By Amy McCullough, News Editor Three Airmen Die in Japan Sept. 29 realigned the 9th Reconnaissance Wing at Beale Three airmen on temporary duty at Kadena Air Base on the AFB, Calif., and the 55th Wing at Offutt AFB, Neb., under Japanese island of Okinawa died Oct. 5. They were washed 25th Air Force. out to sea as Typhoon Phanfone raged around the island. SMSgt. James Swartz, 51, was pronounced dead at a local hospital after the Japanese Coast Guard pulled him from the sea. He was an aerospace propulsion superintendent with the 116th Air Control Wing, Robins AFB, Ga. screenshot HH-60s from Kadena and the Japanese Coast Guard searched for the remaining two airmen, MSgt. Daniel Paschal, 34, and SSgt. Joshua Schoenhoff, 27. Rough seas complicated the rescue efforts, but their bodies were recovered on Oct. 7 and 8. Paschal, also with the 116th Air Control Wing, was an aerospace propulsion craftsman. Schoenhoff was an instru- ment and fl ight control specialist with the 461st Air Control 10.05.2014 Wing at Robins. Airmen at Robins AFB, Ga., prepare to load a C-60 Lodestar Welcome Back, 19th Air Force aircraft into a C-5M Super Galaxy to transport it to the Air Air Education and Training Command reactivated 19th Mobility Command Museum at Dover AFB, Del. The C-5M is Air Force on Oct. 1. The new numbered air force, which had USAF’s only transport capable of carrying the World War II-era been inactivated in 2012, was brought back at the direction of aircraft.
    [Show full text]
  • The War Hitler Won: the Battle for Europe, 1939-1941
    Journal of Military and Strategic VOLUME 14, ISSUE 1, FALL 2011 Studies The War Hitler Won: The Battle for Europe, 1939-1941 Robert Citino "A Distinctive Language": The German Operational Pattern In the fall of 1939, the German army (Wehrmacht) began a run of decisive victories that was quite unlike anything in living military memory. With their fearsome tank (Panzer) formations operating as an apparently irresistible spearhead, and with a powerful air force (Luftwaffe) circling overhead, the Wehrmacht ran through or around every defensive position thrown in its path. The opening campaign in Poland (Case White) smashed the Polish army in 18 days, although a bit more fighting was necessary to reduce the capital, Warsaw.1 Equally 1 For Case White, begin with the belated "official history" commissioned by the Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt, Das Deutsche Reich und Der Zweite Weltkrieg, volume 2, Die Errichtung der hegemonie auf dem Europäischen Kontinent (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1979), especially "Hitler's Erster 'Blitzkrieg' und seine Auswirkungen auf Nordosteuropa," pp. 79-156. Labeling this "official history" is misleading--it is far more a meticulously researched critical history by a team of crack scholars. Robert M. Kennedy, The German Campaign in Poland, 1939, Department of the Army Pamphlet no. 20-255 (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1956) continues to dominate the field, and Matthew Cooper, The German Army, 1933-1945 (Chelsea, MI: Scarborough House, 1978), pp. 169-176, is still useful. Both Pat McTaggart, "Poland '39," Command 17 (July-August 1992), p. 57, and David T. Zabecki, "Invasion of Poland: Campaign that Launched a War," World War II 14, no.
    [Show full text]
  • Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (Asff)
    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2021 February 2020 Justification for FY 2021 Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) FISCAL YEAR 2021 OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (OCO) REQUEST AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND (ASFF) The estimated cost of this report or study for the Department of Defense is approximately $282,000 in Fiscal Years 2019 - 2020. This includes $2,080 in expenses and $280,000 in DoD labor. Generated on 2020Feb04 RefID: C-C447346 FISCAL YEAR 2021 OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS (OCO) REQUEST AFGHANISTAN SECURITY FORCES FUND (ASFF) (Dollars in Thousands) Table of Contents I. O-1 Exhibit, Funding by Budget Activity Group and Sub-Activity Group ....................................................................................................................... 5 II. The Importance of the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund in the U.S. South Asia Strategy ........................................................................................... 6 A. Budget Activity Groups ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 B. Women in the ANDSF ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 C. Sources of ANDSF Funding ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lead Inspector General for Operation Freedom's Sentinel April 1, 2021
    OFS REPORT TO CONGRESS FRONT MATTER OPERATION FREEDOM’S SENTINEL LEAD INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS APRIL 1, 2021–JUNE 30, 2021 FRONT MATTER ABOUT THIS REPORT A 2013 amendment to the Inspector General Act established the Lead Inspector General (Lead IG) framework for oversight of overseas contingency operations and requires that the Lead IG submit quarterly reports to Congress on each active operation. The Chair of the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency designated the DoD Inspector General (IG) as the Lead IG for Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS). The DoS IG is the Associate IG for the operation. The USAID IG participates in oversight of the operation. The Offices of Inspector General (OIG) of the DoD, the DoS, and USAID are referred to in this report as the Lead IG agencies. Other partner agencies also contribute to oversight of OFS. The Lead IG agencies collectively carry out the Lead IG statutory responsibilities to: • Develop a joint strategic plan to conduct comprehensive oversight of the operation. • Ensure independent and effective oversight of programs and operations of the U.S. Government in support of the operation through either joint or individual audits, inspections, investigations, and evaluations. • Report quarterly to Congress and the public on the operation and activities of the Lead IG agencies. METHODOLOGY To produce this quarterly report, the Lead IG agencies submit requests for information to the DoD, the DoS, USAID, and other Federal agencies about OFS and related programs. The Lead IG agencies also gather data and information from other sources, including official documents, congressional testimony, policy research organizations, press conferences, think tanks, and media reports.
    [Show full text]