USAFE and PACAF to disband?

Inside the Pentagon
Pacific, Europe commands likely affected
IN BIG OVERHAUL, AIR FORCE MAY CONSOLIDATE UP TO FIVE MAJOR COMMANDS
March 16, 2006

The Air Force may consolidate three or more of its 10 major commands as
part of a sweeping effort to cut billions of dollars from its budget
and up to 59,000 military and civilian personnel from its ranks,
service officials tell Inside the Pentagon. There are several different
proposals under discussion in Air Force circles and some imagine as
many as half the service's major commands -- or "majcoms" for
short -- being substantially reorganized, according to officials. But
none of the major commands will escape some amount of streamlining, and
they will operate more efficiently as a result, says Air Force Chief of
Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley. "We're necking down to some things
that look pretty attractive," he told ITP March 15 in a brief
telephone interview. The changes, he said, will make the commands
better able to serve joint force combatant commanders in operations
around the globe. "Do we need all of the functional [jobs] at every
major command headquarters?" Moseley asked. "For example, do we
need 125 or 130 or 140 personnel and manpower people at every majcom
headquarters? Do we need 120 or 130 or 150 civil engineers at every
major command headquarters? You can go down the row of each of those
functional [positions] that are true staff functions -- not operational
or deployable [personnel] but are staff functions -- [and ask,] 'Do
you need all of those at all the major command headquarters?' I would
suggest to you that you don't." Service commands at the top of the
list for change include U.S. Air Forces in Europe, based at Ramstein
Air Base in Germany, and Pacific Air Forces, based at Hickam Air Force
Base in Hawaii, according to other Air Force officials. Moseley has
said that although he intends to cut 30 or so general-officer positions
from the service, none are likely to be four-stars. By retaining the
four-star leaders at regional commands in Europe and the Pacific --
whose organization names would likely change -- the Air Force could
keep a general officer "at the table" with the other services in
providing air power to top combatant commanders. The high rank also
allows these generals to negotiate security cooperation measures with
foreign counterparts in the region, according to service officials.
Asked in February if the two commands might ultimately be eliminated,
Moseley told ITP, "We won't get rid of them because of the
SACEUR-NATO representation [and] security cooperation in both
theaters." The chief was referring in the first instance to the role
U.S. Air Forces in Europe plays as air component to the supreme allied
commander in Europe -- currently Marine Corps Gen. James Jones -- who
is both the top U.S. officer in Europe and the top NATO commander. At
the same time, the two commands -- known widely as "PACAF" and
USAFE" -- may be significantly trimmed down in an effort to eliminate
layers of bureaucracy, Air Force officers say. Operational units that
previously have reported up the command chain through these two
component commands would instead communicate directly with Air Combat
Command, which could take on a significantly higher budget and more
authority, officials tell ITP. That would leave the top Air Force
representative in the Pacific and in Europe with much smaller staffs,
allowing a reduction of thousands of jobs, according to service
sources. To say the Air Force is "really downsizing" these commands
"scares people," Moseley said in February at a Florida conference.
"What I don't know is how do we go more horizontal with the
structure and use reach back" to U.S.-based organizations for
support, he said. "It sounds awful sweeping and difficult to do,"
said one senior Air Force official this week. "But that doesn't
make it untrue." The service is expected to take fewer cuts at its
major command serving U.S. Central Command -- at least in the near term
-- because of ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to
some officials. But virtually all the major commands will take some
amount of reductions, with several beyond PACAF and USAFE expected to
undergo some significant changes, according to Air Force officials.
"We're looking at making all majcoms more lean," Moseley told ITP
at the Florida conference. The anticipated major command overhaul is an
important element of the large-scale streamlining the service chief
believes necessary to save an estimated $20 billion in budget funds and
cut 40,000 active-duty forces from its ranks, service officials say. As
many as 19,000 additional cuts to "active-duty equivalent"
personnel are to come from the civilian, Air National Guard and Air
Force Reserve workforce, officials say. How each of the major commands
beyond PACAF and USAFE might be affected by the coming changes is more
up in the air, sources say. Moseley declined to offer specifics either
in his February remarks or the interview this week. One organization
subject to change may be Air Force Special Operations Command based at
Hurlburt Field, FL, which last month transferred responsibility over
the critical combat search and rescue mission to Air Combat Command.
According to some officials, the entire special operations headquarters
might be made subordinate to Air Combat Command, which is based at
Langley Air Force Base, VA. Regardless of how that sorts out, Air
Combat Command will likely emerge as the "king command," one
service officer said this week. It is expected to take on considerably
more oversight authority and budget dollars as the consolidation plan
emerges, this and other officials observe. In recent weeks, much talk
has centered on the possibility that Air Force Space Command -- based
at Peterson Air Force Base, CO -- would be downgraded to a three-star
command position and made subordinate to Air Combat Command. Its
acquisition arm -- Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles Air
Force Base -- would be transferred to Air Force Materiel Command,
according to this reorganization concept. But several Air Force
officials described this proposal as a "trial balloon" that was
quickly shot down by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) in a March 1 letter to
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Downgrading Air Force Space
Command and transferring Space and Missile [Systems Center] to Air
Force Materiel Command would be contrary to the recommendations of the
2001 Space Commission" -- which Rumsfeld chaired -- "and represents
a considerable step backward," Allard wrote in the missive, first
disclosed last week by Space News. "More alarmingly, it would seem to
indicate a lack of appreciation for the capabilities provided by
military space and suggests that the department is not focused on what
must be considered a top mission area." Allard was also critical of
U.S. Strategic Command's move last year to create an Air Force-led
component command that combines space and global strike, saying "this
action has essentially downgraded the mission of space operations from
a four-star combatant command to a three-star billet that is focused
almost entirely on global strike." The senator's letter made no
reference to a Feb. 15 message Moseley sent to the strategic commander,
Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright. The Air Force chief's letter
proposed "separating the space and global strike mission areas" to
"achieve better integration of space capabilities across U.S.
[Strategic Command's] service components." Service officials point
to these missives, both obtained by ITP, as among several indications
the service is unlikely to downgrade Air Force Space Command anytime in
the near future. At the same time, the service has not yet named a
replacement for Gen. Lance Lord, who retires from his post as head of
Air Force Space Command on April 1. Senior officials tell ITP the
command may continue to be led in an acting capacity by its three-star
deputy, Lt. Gen. Frank Klotz, until August, when Lt. Gen. Kevin Chilton
might be promoted and transferred from his current post as the 8th Air
Force commander and head of Cartwright's space and global strike
component. Another facet of the reorganization debate is how the
service's "numbered air forces" -- the next echelon above the
wings -- might evolve. These organizations have a long heritage but are
declining in operational importance relative to air operations centers,
services officials say. The air operations centers -- aimed at being
capable of transitioning to joint air headquarters in times of conflict
-- are quickly becoming the key Air Force-led warfighting organizations
in each region around the globe, according to service officials. What
may happen is that the traditional numbered air forces could fold into
the warfighting headquarters, without maintaining excess force
structure, one officer said this week. For example, the air operations
center in U.S. Pacific Command's area of responsibility may be named
the "George C. Kinney Warfighting Headquarters (11th Air Force),"
said this officer. "What we are doing is collapsing everything onto a
warfighting structure," says another Air Force officer. There is a
potential downside to that process, though. An organizational construct
that is more efficient for air operations worldwide could be less
functional for the service's training and support wings, this officer
noted. What is clear is that non-warfighting headquarters, like Air
Education and Training Command, will get much leaner, said another
officer. Moseley agreed. More direct reporting and fewer echelons for
decision-making will form the basis for organizational streamlining at
AETC and all the other majcoms, he said. The chief is also looking at
whether some "direct reporting units," like the service's agency
for tracking weather, must be manned by those in uniform. Some of these
responsibilities may be contracted to the private sector so that those
in uniform remain focused on operational tasks and are available for
deployment overseas, service officials say. Moseley is intent on
avoiding "peanut butter spread" cuts across the service, leaving
fewer personnel but "working your people harder," he said this
week. "We have to get beyond that." Instead the idea, he said, is
to eliminate many of the layers of bureaucracy that needlessly slow
down decision-making. "I think you have to get to driving those
efficiencies, so you squeeze out every opportunity to have checkers
checking checkers, who check checkers before a decision is made and we
get to 'operationalizing' a decision," he told ITP. "That's
what I'm wrastling with."

.