- Mission/ Purpose of the Agency
The Department of Defense had been established to sustain the country's need for military strength to deter war and protect the nation from any threat, may it be internal or external threat. According to Trask and Glennon (2008) the department is also created to maintain and continue employing Armed Forces or military personnel to support and protect the Constitution from any threat. In addition to this, the department is also tasked to ensure that military action is done effectively and efficiently to ensure the security of the nation and all its national interest. Finally, the DoD is also tasked to uphold and advance the interests of the country by enforcing policies that would sustain both national interest and security.
The creation of the DoD can be perceived as a military necessity according to Polmar (2005) as the Congress established the War Department (1789) and the Navy Department (1798) to administer the US military. The War Department took charge with the US armed services while the Navy Department took over the Navy and Marine divisions. Two secretaries were assigned to sustain both departments, reporting only to the president and were also given positions in the cabinet. While both departments have done its best to sustain the country’s military arm, the set up was changed by the time the National Security Act of 1947 came into form. The NSA of 1947 was enacted on September 18, 1947 to create the National Military Establishment and the National Security Council, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff that would also be a part of the cabinet.
A Secretary of Defense also is created to coordinate all these departments. The NSA was then amended in 1949 wherein it established the Secretary of Defense as the principal assistant to the President in terms of defense and national security issues, changing the National Military Establishment to the Department of Defense. The amendments were also established to ensure that the military departments put themselves under the DoD, removing the cabinet secretaries from their positions. In recent years, former Secretaries of State had removed several decision-making prerogatives of the military departments and transferred them to other departments and agencies. In 1958, the Defense Reorganization Act was established to add a new chain of command from the president and the Secretary of Defense to the unified and specified commanders in chief that handles each a particular station of command. The commanders-in-chief are also tasked to have full operational command over their forces. Nonetheless, the Secretary of Defense is also given the power to designate operational control to the Joint Chiefs of Staff if necessary. Before the establishment of the DoD, military departments had been given the jurisdiction to act as the executive bodies to control their own specific departments .
- Regulatory Options
As stressed by Polmar (2005), before the establishment of the DoD, the various military departments that have been established such as the National Security Council and the War Department, were given the power to act as the administrative bodies to control their departments. Prior to the creation of the DoD, it is noted that the National Military Establishment, the National Security Council, the War Department and the Navy Department would have been enough to ensure that the country’s military and national defense network would be sustained. It is also visible that before the NSA was enacted in 1949, the War and Navy Departments were able to take charge with their respective departments. However, the problem with different departments handling the military arm of the government is the fact that there would be a difficulty in communicating orders from the President to the department heads and to their constituent groups. Since both departments would have their own varying standard-operating procedure regarding issues on national security and defense, it would be hard to create a common framework to enact information dissemination and action over defense-related issues and inquiry.
The absence of a unifying body to assist and administrate the military arm would also present lapses in terms of organization and job distribution. Of course, there was a complaint as to the creation of a unified body that would support and command the military arm of the government. For the navy, they were worried that the setup such as the War Department and later on, the Department of Defense, would threaten the future of naval development and independence. The navy called for a policy coordination scheme, similar to that of the British Committee of Imperial Defense. Nonetheless, the Congress created the National Security Act of 1947 that would create a similar model influence by the British model to retain centralization and a form of unification for all of the country’s military agencies. However, the National Military Establishment, the off-shoot product of the National Security Act of 1947, was then transformed into a full-scale executive department, which fostered change in the system.
Upon the creation of the Department of Defense, it has presented several advantages that clearly show its efficiency as the country’s medium to sustain its national security and defense mechanism. First and foremost, it has served as the unifying department for all military, national security and defense agencies despite the dwindling power it has over the years. Second, the department also organized the control of agencies and sustains the allocation of resources, which became the problem of the first few versions of the Department. In addition to this, Chambers (2000) stressed that with the establishment of the Department of Defense, the secretary of defense is now given the crucial task to present to the President all the matters pertaining to the country’s national security without admonishing the powers and liberties it has as the country’s defense mechanism. The Department has also retained the attention of past administrations as they saw the potential of the defense organization to improve its services and organization .
- Principal Statutes
In sustaining the power of the Department of Defense and its sub-agencies, several statutes or directives have been in place to structure and organize the power of the Department. The principal statutes of the department are located under the United States Code in various chapters, which identifies the powers and responsibilities given to the Department of Defense in given situations and department requirements . There are several samples within the United States Federal Code which showcases the given powers to the Department of Defense; most are written in Title 10 “Armed Forces”, which presents points of interest. In one example, USC §2201-2202, it covers the Department of Defense’s capacity to declare an airborne alert that would be included in the expenses and costs that would be shouldered by the organization. The organization, under this statute, also lists down the means as to how it would regulate the department to ensure that resources are properly procured, produced and distributed within the allotted budget.
Another notable statute is 41 USC § 23 or the project order statute which provides the DoD with authority to order goods and services which would not be influenced by the Economy Act. The Economy Act cuts the federal spending of over $243 million and enabled the president to reorganize the executive agencies for efficiency. This act is also known as the act which cuts the salary of federal workers and reduces benefits for the veterans, which would have been a key to reduce the country’s federal deficit. The statute also covers transactions between military departments and DoD government-owned establishments for work-related to military and defense projects. The statute brings most interest as it showcases how deep the problem of the country is in terms of resolving the fiscal crisis and still, the department found means to sustain its finances without limiting or undermining national security .
- Agency’s Regulations
The principal regulations of the Department of Defense are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which also contains titles allotted to other departments and agencies of the United States federal government. The regulations under the Code of Federal Regulations for the Department of Defense are both interpretive and legislative at the same time considering the nature of the regulations set under national security and defense. It is interpretive as Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations explains and discusses the existing laws and regulations surrounding the position of the Department of Defense and its responsibilities on contracts, military action and crimes. The regulations also found in Title 32 of the CFR is not similar to the statutes written in the United States Code as the CFR provides the general and brief interpretation of statutes listed in the CFR, giving the agencies the power to enforce each statute listed in the CFR. On the other hand, the regulations of the department are also considered legislative in the sense that each regulation written in the CFR, may it be for National Defense or for any other issue, is legally binding. The Congress, in its end, plays a monitoring or a guiding role when it comes to enacting the policies stated in the CFR, giving the Department of Defense the jurisdiction and power to settle its transactions and policies without requiring the attention of the Congress or the President.
Several notable regulations under Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations is the Defense Grant and Agreement Regulatory System (DGARS/ §22.200) and the Defense Assistance Awards Data System (DAADS/§21.520). The DGARS provides uniform policies and procedures to enable the Department of Defense to award and administrate the procurement of grants and assistance to recipient officials, groups, organizations, governments and the like. The DGARS also covers nonprocurement instruments to implement orders from the President or statutes binding the organization. The DGARS is also noted to ensure efficient program execution, efficient resource distribution and handling, and finally the dissemination of information and data to noted authorities. The DAADS, on the other hand, is similar to the DGARS system although in this case, the data coming from this system provides the department additional leverage when it comes to meeting statutory requirements and programs required by the department for its proposals. The DAADS system also provides information for the department to sustain its programs, support its policy and implementation; especially when it comes to awarding grants and instruments .
- Organization
According to Lewis (1988) the Department of Defense has more than 2 million people employed in its roster, both military and civilian personnel. Under this department, the leadership of the country’s defense capacity is divided into three categories: the first group comprised the civilians nominated by the President with the approval of the Senate, the second ground comprises the senior career military officers from the three sects of the military – namely the Army, Air Force, and Navy; and finally, the senior career civil service personnel. The leadership of the Department, or the Secretary of Defense, is a civilian appointee and has a staff of 15 individuals who are also nominated by the President. These 15 individuals comprise 2 Deputy Secretaries of Defense, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, 8 Assistant Secretaries of Defense, and 4 Assistants to the Secretary. In the end of the second group, the President appoints Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; who then would report directly to the Secretary of Defense. Each secretary is given a chief assistant that would be known as the Undersecretary of the Army, Navy, or Air Force and four Assistant Secretaries.
The Assistant Secretaries would be in charge of the following: financial management, installations and logistics, manpower and reserve affairs, and research and development. These five civilian officials are nominated by the President, under the supervision of the Secretary of Defense. Aside from this, the military Chief of Staff is also appointed by the President as he would become the senior military officer representing the armed services. It is also the President who appoints the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from one of the services included in the Department. Each individual Chief Of Staff is responsible directly to the Secretary of Defense and the corresponding Secretaries under the jurisdiction of the department. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and employs almost 2,000 military and civilian personnel. In the event the Secretary of Defense or any of the appointed officials for the Department has vacated their position, the President is given the power to select a new representative for the position .
- Current Regulatory Issues
As of the present time, the Department of Defense is currently confronted with regulatory issues in terms of the department’s policies and its position over women. In terms of the department’s policies, Weisgerber (2012) reported that the Pentagon or the Department of Defense is now thinking of protecting its major weapons programs and furloughing civilian workers to ensure that operations in Afghanistan continues due to the $50 billion sequestration cut in its 2013 budget. In this end, the DoD would have limited powers over their funding and how they can stop possible sequestration from progressing within the department. Should sequestration happen, the DoD would have to modify its contracts and agreements with its contractors, laying off jobs to sustain the war effort . In the case of women, the Department of Defense has been under siege as military women personnel are fighting against the exclusion rules set by the department over its personnel. In a report done by O’Toole (2012), several female members of the military with distinction have filed lawsuits against the Department of Defense over its restriction of women in combat as it violates the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
The plaintiffs have all served in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and accurse the department to have violated their rights to equal protection under the law, as the department pushes for a combat exclusion rule that would still bar women in the US military. Since May 2012, the Department had been implementing plans to open 14,325 jobs for women to enable women to take part in direct ground combat units as a preparation for women to be integrated fully to the operations in which they are barred into. While many welcome the change, women soldiers and personnel find these reforms hampering their development professionally. The Department noted that they are already making sure to develop gender-neutral physical standards and policies to remove the combat exclusion clause and to ensure that the Department would put qualified personnel regardless of gender in the battlefield .
References
Chambers, J. W. (2000). The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, E. (1988). American Politics in a Bureaucratic Age: Citizens, Constitutents, Clients, and Victims. Lanham: University Press of America.
Office of the Federal Register. (2010). Code of Federal Regulations, Title 32, National Defense. Washington, D.C: US Government Printing Office.
O'Toole, M. (2012, November 27). Military Women Challenge Combat Exclusion Rule in Lawsuit Against Defense Department. Retrieved December 31, 2012, from The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/women-in-combat-defense-department_n_2195462.html?utm_hp_ref=department-of-defense
Polmar, N. (2005). Ships and Aircraft of the U.S Fleet. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press.
Tomanelli, S. (2003). Appropriations Law: Principles and Practice. Vienna: Management Concepts.
Trask, R., & Glennon, J. (2008). The Department of Defense: Documents on Organization and Mission, 1978-2003. Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office.
Weisgerber, M. (2012, October 8). If Cuts Happen, Troops, Major Weapons Are DoD Priorities. Retrieved December 30, 2012, from Defense News: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20121008/DEFREG02/310080001/If-Cuts-Happen-Troops-Major-Weapons-DoD-Priorities
