A Supreme Commander for the War on Terror

Before September 11, 2001, U.S. defense was centered on fighting regionally focused conventional wars against state opponents such as Iraq and North Korea. After September 11, the defense reality changed to unconventional conflicts on a global scale against primarily nonstate actors. Beginning in late 2005, the term Long War began to appear in security documents such as the National Security Council’s National Strategy for Victory in Iraq and in statements by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Robert Cassidy argues that this protracted struggle is more correctly viewed as a global insurgency and counterinsurgency.1 Placing the war against al Qaeda and its allied organizations in the context of a global insurgency has vital implications for doctrine, training, interagency coordination, military culture change, and, particularly, command structures and arrangements. While the functions of command are eternal, the nature of command must evolve in scale and scope, given developments in technology and warfare.2 If the United States is truly involved in a war on terror, the Armed Forces must apply doctrinal principles of war that are applicable to any conflict. Chief among these for the Long War is unity of command. Current command arrangements are imprecise or cobbled together and do not fully address the situation at hand. This global “theater” requires a supreme military commander to provide the necessary leadership and coherence for diverse geographic and functional commands. Lack of unity of command leads to inefficiencies, opportunity costs, and a less than holistic approach to a global counterinsurgency. The correct command structure for a war of large dimensions is crucial. Unfortunately, determining a specific command structure is too often driven by political or Service considerations. History abounds with command arrangements powered by these factors and shows the costs of such an approach. This article considers the current U.S. military command structure for the war on terror, the nature of the enemy, and the institutional and cultural issues the United States faces to achieve unity of effort and command. It then draws on three historical examples that differ in scale and scope to show the pitfalls associated with commands structured for political reasons. In the end, none of the examples created unity. The article concludes with a vision for how a supreme command for the war on terror can be structured to provide unity of command for the military component of national power.