The Mandate to Revolutionize Military Logistics

In September 2003, the secretary of defense designated US Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) as the distribution process owner (DPO) for the Department of Defense (DOD). It was a signal that systemic solutions need to be instituted at the national level to better integrate military logistics, especially in the areas of transportation, supply, and information technology. The secretary’s directive was a call to action for the entire logistics community to make the necessary organizational and cultural changes to establish one distribution system for the entire military.

The call was in stark contrast to logistics at the tactical level, which has been successful in Afghanistan and Iraq.¹ With few exceptions, Americans know that their soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are adequately provisioned to fight the battles. While there have been some contentious, publicly debated issues such as body-armor shortages and add-on armor for vehicles, media coverage focused on industrial production and election-year politics—not the distribution pipeline and supply chain management.² Actual shortages are few compared to those of past wars.

Still, there is room for significant improvement at the higher levels of our logistics infrastructure to project and sustain combat forces worldwide. Our leaders need to improve the way they integrate tactical, operational, and strategic processes to form a more effective, streamlined distribution pipeline.³ Shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, many disconnects occurred due to training issues. For decades the military reduced training opportunities involving expensive, large-scale unit moves that would have increased an already high operations tempo. Exercises and war games were conducted with reduced numbers of tactical line personnel. Even then, logistics and distribution challenges did not receive sufficient emphasis.

The onus is upon the DPO to make fundamental changes in the ways we conduct large-scale logistical operations. First, systemic changes must be made to ensure proper linkage and synchronization throughout the entire distribution pipeline. Second, we must find new ways to provide the most effective support to units engaged in combat without incurring large additional costs. As Federal Times reported on the initial tip of the iceberg, “During the first month of major combat operations in Iraq two years ago, the Defense Department lost track of $1.2 billion in materials shipped to the Army, encountered hundreds of backlogged shipments, and ran up millions of dollars in fees to lease or replace storage containers because of backlogged or lost shipments.”4 As US international commitments continue to grow, there is no guarantee that additional resources will be provided to the DOD. While most senior leaders would recognize the need to find ways to work smarter with fewer resources, paradoxically, they would also acknowledge that many efficient peacetime operations have no place on the battlefield. Combat effectiveness outweighs all other considerations.

Change is difficult for any organization, military or civilian; therefore, the more controversial changes are usually introduced over time. Any significant, new procedures are embraced by a relative few and thus pose challenges to teamwork as a whole. Significant change in a short period of time—even for all the right reasons—seldom occurs at the higher levels. Proponents of change for the better are not always rewarded, so impressive-sounding phrases and glossy pamphlets precede actual achievement. The slow progress of military evolution may be acceptable in peacetime but not when survival of the nation is at stake. Senior military officials must take the necessary risks and proceed to effect a “revolution in military logistics” that has been talked about for over a generation.

Fixing responsibility for distribution at the four-star level sets the stage for progress. For the first time, we have what is in essence a distribution command that subsumes responsibility for transportation and a portion of defense logistics and operations-information technology. The movement of information in near real time is as important as the physical movement of personnel, cargo, and supplies. It will take four-stars to effect change to systems currently in place and bring our information technologies into the twenty-first century. The amount and type of logistical forces must ultimately be reorganized. New roles and missions will have to be assigned. All of this must be accomplished to achieve situational awareness of all distribution considerations, including power projection and the generation of combat power in-theater.

After becoming the DPO, USTRANSCOM expanded its mode-manager mission to encompass the systemic whole of the Defense Transportation System. In the past, the command operated exclusively between ports of embarkation and ports of debarkation. Today the focus is more holistic and extends from factory or depot, through forward distribution points inside the theater, to forces engaged with the enemy. Movement of up-armored high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV or humvee; up-armored HMMWV is designated UAH) is one example of mission growth. USTRANSCOM and project managers analyzed production schedules in the United States, tracked the flow from stateside factories to Kuwait, monitored in-theater upgrades with ancillary equipment such as blue force trackers and combat-identification panels, and tracked onward movement by surface or intratheater air into Iraq.⁵ They closed gaps between strategic and operational transport to eliminate delays with UAH delivery. Tactical commanders received progress reports so they could anticipate the receipt of UAHs for planning purposes.

Advancements in transportation must coincide with improvements in other areas before the overall distribution chain is strengthened. Holistic improvements in supply might not be as readily forthcoming. Unity of command has not been established for USTRANSCOM to fulfill the supply portion of its DPO mission. USTRANSCOM has no assigned quartermaster organizations. They are all transportation related—Air Mobility Command (AMC), Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC), and Military Sealift Command. DPO initiatives are constrained to the goodwill and informal relationships established with supply-oriented organizations such as the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). Cooperative efforts alone will not bring about a revolution in military logistics. That will require unified efforts through a clearly established chain of command.

Depot packing of containers is an example of the close links between supply and transportation and of the reasons it will take unity of effort to resolve some long-standing problems. In past wars, procedures at national-level warehouses have caused tremendous hardships at forward-distribution points in-theater and have damaged the combat readiness of units on the line. In peacetime, warehousemen have been rewarded for filling containers to capacity, which oftentimes resulted in multiple consignees per shipment. Transportation metrics drove supply procedures, proved to be highly efficient, and significantly reduced costs. Such an approach is disastrous in wartime since forward-distribution points are not resourced with enough materials handling equipment and personnel to deal with multiple consignees dispersed across the battlefield. Troops physically cannot unload and reload containers quickly enough for onward movement to keep pace with throughput demands, so containers with mixed consignees have to be pushed forward to a single recipient. Units that never receive their goods must reorder, but there is still no guarantee that they will ever receive their materiel if peacetime protocols are followed at depots. Readiness in combat suffers, and nonmonetary costs are staggering. Second-order effects include a general loss of confidence in the supply system at the tactical level. Troops inflate priorities on requisitions. Out of frustration, commanders demand movement by air even though surface transport is responsive enough to meet required delivery dates. Trust in the distribution system is destroyed. Ironically, measures put in place at the strategic level to achieve cost-center efficiencies in fact manifest themselves into gross inefficiencies throughout the operational and tactical realms. While some improvements have been made, it will take a united effort by transporters and quartermasters under one commander to straighten it out and institute effective organizational practices for the long term. A single commander with complete oversight of the distribution system would also be able to capture total systemic costs, both financial and nonfinancial, and make the best decisions in support of the war fighter.

Distribution challenges involving depot-level packaging have deep institutional roots that stem from an unwillingness to adopt costly procedures with the sole justification of directly supporting troops in combat. Because logisticians at the national level are so far removed from the battle, it is difficult for them to financially justify modifying their efficient peacetime practices. Again, one commander with complete oversight of the entire distribution pipeline is needed to weigh all considerations. For example, mismanagement of supplies and sequencing of shipments were principal lessons of the Spanish-American War. Railcars—the containers of their day—were packed and shipped to Florida for onward movement by ship with total disregard for the ground fight in Cuba. Confusion ensued at the port of Tampa as logisticians unsuccessfully tried to sort out the mess. In Vietnam, an unmanageable iron mountain of containerized materiel was received at seaports and could not be sorted for onward movement to tactical units. Throughout Operation Desert Storm, the US Army faced the same problems we do today concerning containers with multiple consignees. Currently in Iraq, millions of dollars in penalty costs are assessed each month for a multitude of reasons, many of which can be traced back to a fundamental difference of opinion between strategic-level logisticians and tactical-level combat commanders concerning the use of containers. (At the national level, logisticians were leasing and procuring containers as if they were transportation commodities to be quickly returned from Iraq. But tactical-unit commanders did as they always have in combat and held on to containers to be used for mobile storage, bunkers, security walls, and work space.)

“Brute force” logistics used throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is no longer a viable way to support the US armed forces of the twenty-first century. Senior leaders can now capitalize upon improved communications, computers, and other advanced technologies to achieve greater efficiencies and fulfill unrealized potentials within the distribution system. Disconnects between the strategic, operational, and tactical worlds manifest themselves in many different ways, and it will take a DPO with the right component commands, using the chain of command, to sort out the complexities and unify the effort.

Two obstacles block real progress in reforming the military’s information technology. First, many computer systems are inadequate since the basic architecture is generations old. The military services have simply added new applications to systems over the years without replacing the basic foundation. At some point, applying new technology to a generations-old frame will no longer suffice. The military continues to spend billions of dollars on new applications to old computer architecture to get immediate results. Second, we have a systems-integration problem. Almost every computer system that currently exists within the DOD has been developed to meet specific service or unified-command needs and does not tie into a larger, integrated whole. (This is the same challenge that confronts our intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Now the American public is holding them accountable since they were not able to work together before 11 September 2001.) In the DOD, it will take a concerted, cooperative effort by the four-stars to integrate systems into a coherent whole, thereby enabling holistic assessments about all aspects of our military, including the distribution pipeline.

Architecture supporting the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System (JOPES) illustrates both these challenges. JOPES is critical to our military’s ability to respond to threats worldwide. This system (under another name) originated in the 1950s and has been upgraded with applications and name changes over the years. The JOPES software provides a way for component commands to request strategic and operational transportation, which supports only a portion of the distribution pipeline. The JOPES charter is actually much larger, as its name suggests, but the software meets few needs of the tactical commander. It does not integrate tactical or operational planning or allow staff officers to easily manage unit movements, supply needs, and transportation requirements. Nor does it track the generation of combat power flowing into the theater. In addition, the products produced are complex and cumbersome—enough so to make warriors cringe. It requires months of specialized training and a great deal of patience to input data and interpret results. JOPES must be enhanced to help revolutionize military logistics as well as other war-fighting capabilities.

All of the JOPES functions need to be incorporated into a new, single architecture to provide tacticians a complete picture of personnel and materiel on the ground, properly arrayed for battle, as well as what is en route by air or sea, in order to anticipate total combat capability. Its current focus upon the movement of personnel and unit equipment needs to be included in a new and more comprehensive capability that incorporates all aspects of distribution, and then those considerations must be inculcated into the greater automated realm of strategic- and operational-level war planning and execution. Through execution, future JOPES technology must provide automation support to decision makers across the entire spectrum of joint-operations planning, including redeployment of forces, reconstitution, and in-transit visibility. Combat commanders need comprehensive situational assessments based on near-real-time information. The current system is simply too outdated and clumsy to continue with incremental upgrades to accomplish those goals.

JOPES Planning in the Future. Because logistics is so integral to tactical warfare, automated tools for tacticians to conduct course-of-action analysis must automatically factor in distribution. Transportation and supply features should be built into the software, along with other basic essentials such as tactical maps and unit symbols. As tactical courses of action are contemplated and included in computer scenarios, associated logistic units, supply requirements, and optimum strategic-lift estimates should be automatically programmed as well for each analysis. After a course of action is selected, the supported and supporting commands should be given immediate and simultaneous access to take anticipatory actions, including validation and scheduling of lift. This envisioned process should occur within JOPES and must be far more compressed and user friendly than it is today. Tacticians would be better equipped and more quickly able to brief battle plans that include all the strategic, operational, and tactical underpinnings, many of which involve distribution. Decisions could be expedited and agility improved at all levels.

JOPES Execution in the Future. Moving information in near real time has just as much importance as moving cargo and supplies. If tacticians are ever to gain visibility over large unit moves in their entirety, then revolutionary change in our information technologies will be absolutely necessary. If logisticians are to achieve an agile distribution system to meet the demands of a fast-paced, fluid battlefield, they must be empowered with the ability to make decisions based on the current status of personnel, equipment, and supplies in the pipeline.

With today’s technology, there is no reason that information cannot be displayed in simple, easily accessed formats that allow logisticians and tacticians to make decisions and communicate them using the same Web-based system. The system should allow quick data entries input by warriors with minimal training in order to speed turnaround times for operational assessments. Fulfilling these needs will further empower our tactical commanders and may well revolutionize the way we prosecute the war on terror.

Sufficiently powerful computers may not exist today for one system to collect and process the volumes of data needed to plan and execute global distribution and combat operations. That should not stop our military, for it has accomplished the seemingly impossible before. The US Army built the first modern computer, named Eniac, in 1944 to automate its artillery fire and bombing tables—an extremely ambitious task in its day. While the next generation of computers may come about as the result of DPO initiatives, the effort cannot be accomplished without visionary leadership from the Joint Staff, military services, and unified commands—especially the Joint Forces Command as the joint deployment process owner.

Senior logisticians may serve as a catalyst for change throughout the DOD. But since distribution, strategic movements, and operational-level maneuver comprise only part of the joint planning and execution system, logisticians alone cannot fix the problems with JOPES and achieve its full war-fighting potential. Herculean efforts from outside the logistics community will be needed before revolutionary changes in information technology come about. The challenges are significant and will not be overcome until cultural changes occur at the highest levels of the military.

First, senior-level war fighters have to commit to revolutionizing information technologies to better equip the country to fight its current battles. Aggressive leaders who embody the warrior spirit do not naturally gravitate towards computers. But these are the very people most needed to ensure that technicians design JOPES to meet war-fighter needs. Air and ground combat officers as well as surface warfare officers are more critical to the success of a new system than are combat logisticians. Done correctly, their efforts would produce a national asset that would be the modern-day equivalent of Napoléon crawling around on his campaign-tent floor, totally engrossed with his maps, working out time-distance calculations as well as war-gaming branches and sequels, positioning his forces and resolving sustainment challenges.

Second, the needs of individual military services have been allowed to subsume the greater joint interests. For generations, service needs, parochialisms, and competing budgetary priorities have thwarted the senior-leader consensus necessary for fundamental and profound changes to JOPES. Strong personalities have been at play across the board, so even stronger ones are needed to prevail.

Third, command climates at the highest echelons of our military have to change. While extremely dedicated and highly successful officers work tirelessly to accomplish assigned missions, they also have the political savvy to protect their reputations. They normally posture themselves so they are not associated with projects that lack momentum and do not progress according to schedule. Significant glitches and unforeseen delays would no doubt occur during the development and initial fielding of a new system the size and magnitude of JOPES. Any concerted effort to bring it into the twenty-first century would be fraught with risk. Because failure in the pursuit of excellence is not an option on many flag-officer staffs, the future of JOPES remains uncertain.

Second-order effects from these challenges create ineffective staff dynamics at high levels. Many have heard the old adage about the staff officer who worked a project and then inherited it again years later upon his return, essentially where he had left off. That’s JOPES. Action officers understand temporary delays. They know that their efforts cannot always receive attention from senior personnel who react to urgent priorities of the moment. But they also realize that an important project, worked for generations but not to fruition, is really a hot potato. The history of JOPES and its predecessor systems includes reshuffled proponent responsibilities and mission transfers between commands.

Given the significance of these challenges, the military’s cultural biases, and what is at stake for the country, JOPES can only hope for a high-ranking champion to emerge, recognize its significance to the nation, lock horns with the challenge, and ramrod a new product through the system. That person may well have to be someone from outside the uniformed military ranks. The fate of revolutionizing military logistics, among other things, is closely tied to the future of JOPES. Under optimal conditions, it would take years to produce the needed changes. A nation at war needs the very best tools to prosecute the fight, so we need to start now, regardless of the risks involved.

Resourcing the DPO Mission:
Reorganization of Staffs
and Support Forces

The DPO mission requires changes in the organization of logistical commands and staffs. From the command perspective, line units with specialized training are needed to perform distribution functions and fulfill the theater commander’s materiel and information requirements. From the staff perspective, US Central Command (USCENTCOM) is pursuing a new approach. DPO representatives are colocated with theater staff to provide strategic-level analyses and advise operational commanders. These new capabilities could “reach back” to the continental United States (CONUS) and provide the unity of command needed for end-to-end distribution.

USTRANSCOM and USCENTCOM organized a new strategic-level staff called the CENTCOM Deployment Distribution Operations Center (CDDOC) and colocated it with the land-component headquarters at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. CDDOC personnel are trained, equipped, and resourced to conduct strategic-level analyses using available information technologies such as the Global Command and Control System, Joint Flow Analysis System for Transportation, and Global Decision Support System. They coordinate with operational staffs such as Army Materiel Command and the DLA to anticipate readiness needs, take corrective action when shortfalls in supply or transportation occur, and work quality-of-life issues in-theater. The CDDOC has been so successful that similar initiatives are being worked in US Pacific Command and US European Command.

The CDDOC joined with Combined Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) and the DLA to provide more reliable and responsive support to Combined Joint Task Force 76 in Afghanistan. At one time, 100 percent of the task force’s sustainment was flown directly from the United States to Kabul. This approach was replaced by intratheater air channels and surface routes through Pakistan using the direct-support warehouses in Kuwait.⁶ This significantly reduced shipping time for orders and achieved more responsive support to the war fighter. While more effective means of support also proved more efficient, significant dollar savings were not the driving force for change.

The CDDOC spearheaded the “single ticket” initiative to achieve seamless unit movement from origin to final destination. Previously, onward-movement arrangements were made only after deploying units arrived in-theater. The CDDOC gained visibility of units prior to their departure from the CONUS, eliminated transit delays in-theater, and closed the gap between strategic and operational transportation.

Strategic-level changes being made in the quartermaster field complement DPO efforts right now, but there is no guarantee that separate commands will always row together to close the seams between the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. These changes raise questions over command relationships between national-level logistics agencies and the secretary of defense’s intent in regards to the “DPO.” Ownership implies a high degree of responsibility to streamline the entire distribution system, including supply and materiel management. Responsibility and authority should be commensurate, so one would think that command relationships would also evolve to ensure unity of effort.

The DLA and CFLCC partnered to resolve challenges with the closing of requisitions after goods are received in-theater. During the first six months of Operation Iraqi Freedom, $1.2 billion worth of requisitions had not been closed out electronically by line organizations even though it was believed that most of the supplies had actually been issued out by forward distribution points.7 (There is no certainty over the accounting for goods since records were not kept in-theater, and the multiple-consignee problem discussed earlier further complicated supply discipline.) Until the receipt process was finalized, funds could not be transferred from Army accounts to the DLA, which caused the agency’s cash flow to dry up and threatened its continued operations. Accounts were finally reimbursed by CFLCC, but no permanent fixes have been put in place to ensure that tactics, techniques, and procedures at the strategic level mesh with operations at the tactical level. A gap still exists, and it is the DPO’s responsibility to ensure it is closed before the next campaign in the global war.

The DLA has assumed an increasingly important role in executing the general support supply mission in USCENTCOM. The DLA has already issued thousands of national-stock-numbered items in-theater and expanded them to over 7,000 items by 2006. A robust general-support base drives down customer wait time and provides responsive backup support to the direct support base and war fighter. Through proper DLA management, replenishment stocks are ordered well in advance, and crisis management is avoided. Bulk tonnage best suited for surface transport does not have to be flown in on an emergency basis. These efforts have helped close the gap between the operational realm (theater-supply requirements) and the strategic realm (transportation-required delivery dates). They illustrate that effective support can result in huge efficiencies and cost savings.

New organizations need to be established to execute the DPO mission. After staffs such as the CDDOCs provide strategic-level assessments, military line units with the proper training and resources will be needed at key logistics nodes to implement those staff recommendations.

AMC is organized to execute inter- and intratheater airlift missions, as well as operate airfields for deploying forces, and to maintain unity of command—even though in some cases the command has relinquished operational control of resources to the theater. But AMC’s ground counterpart, SDDC, does not have the force structure to accomplish its mode-operations mission and carry out an expanded distribution role. SDDC relies heavily upon Army Reserve units that have already fulfilled their mobilization commitments specified by the secretary of defense. SDDC’s active Army units are stretched thin while engaged in operating seaports around the world, even before taking on additional end-to-end distribution responsibilities.

“Deployment and distribution operations” battalions and groups could be organized from the current logistics force structure and manned with personnel trained in transportation, supply, and information technology. This new capability could be used in-theater to reach back to major logistics commands in the United States and ensure that the theater commander’s intent is met. Just as AMC moves personnel, equipment, and cargo forward to corps organizations, so can SDDC use these units to execute the surface onward-movement mission from ports of debarkation to points as far forward as corps forward distribution points. Such an approach combines strategic and operational distribution efforts into one unified whole under one DPO chain of command. This is currently the approach we are using to supply our troops in Afghanistan, and it has worked well. But in Iraq, three separate chains of command are involved: USTRANSCOM for the strategic, CFLCC for the operational, and Multi-National Force-Iraq for the tactical. By combining the strategic and operational, no longer would handoffs be necessary at congested aerial ports and seaports, which are not ideal locations to transfer onward-movement responsibilities.

Deployment and distribution operations battalions could also assist the DLA with its emerging general-support base missions. At present, the DLA uses contractors to perform materiel management and warehousing functions. In the future, commercial options may not be viable in some hostile regions of the world, so provisions need to be made to adequately resource the DLA in-theater to perform what are arguably DPO missions. The permanent assignment of active duty or Reserve organizations to the DLA would establish command relationships and training regimens well in advance of overseas missions. Since the military’s force structure is unlikely to grow in the foreseeable future, senior leaders would have to resolve any controversy stirred up by considering reassignment of tactical units from force provider commands.

Resourcing the DPO Mission:
Information Technology

Computer programs in the US military have been developed independently from one another and do not tie together. To accomplish the DPO mission—as well as other strategic-level missions in the DOD—systems management and holistic assessments of entire processes are needed. If end-to-end distribution is ever to become a reality, it will require integrated software systems.

The logistics community needs to place less emphasis on developing new software systems and more on integrating the prolific number of separate programs that currently exist. Logisticians must work toward a common operational picture that provides the most current status available for all inter- and intratheater movement and tie it all together. We cannot afford to continue waiting for a single architecture to build the common operational picture. That panacea has been discussed for decades and is not likely to materialize anytime soon, given the competing military services’ priorities and budgets.

In light of these realities, the most practical and effective approach—called the “knowledge wall”—is currently being implemented at USTRANSCOM. Task by task and challenge by challenge, leaders are finding ways to employ integration software to pull key data from numerous databases and automatically display the most currently accessible information. Existing programs are linked together to generate charts templated with key management-information fields that are automatically updated as new data enters the database. The intent is to build charts as exportable packages for use in the field by war fighters. While the DPO uses the knowledge wall to monitor the health of the distribution system, other commands will be able to use these same exportable products to make operational decisions. USTRANSCOM uses Single Mobility System software to accomplish integration functions, and the command is focused on capabilities rather than promoting specific software programs.

The goal is to eventually build briefing charts with drill-down capabilities to make them usable at all levels of a staff. They display a full array of information: manifests for aircraft en route and vessels under way, equipment or supplies currently in the strategic or theater pipelines, and cumulative supplies moved into the theater.

Ideally, the standard for the manual inputting of logistics data should be “one time at the point of origin,” which later saves countless hours of work and increases responsiveness of the distribution system. If the knowledge-wall approach is adopted throughout the logistics community, the consequent linking of increasing numbers of databases will reduce manual inputs. Eventually, senior leaders should ban service-centric programs that might be advertised as supporting joint systems but that actually serve immediate and narrowly focused interests. The greater joint-distribution interests must take precedence.

Conclusion and
Recommendations

Over the years, tactical-level logistics have evolved separately from strategic-level distribution processes. Today they are partially unlinked. Unity of command must be established so the DPO can bring strategic, operational, and tactical logistics back into alignment. Only then will they form an integrated whole to serve the needs of forward-deployed units.

Designation of a single process owner for distribution was a signal from senior civilian leaders that significant changes needed to be made in large-scale logistical operations. To carry out its DPO responsibilities, USTRANSCOM will need a forward-staff presence in-theater to conduct strategic-level assessments and provide distribution options to the combat commanders. USTRANSCOM must partner with the services, unified commands, and DLA to reorganize staffs and create line units from existing force structure. JOPES must be fixed to better enable fundamental changes to military logistics and other war-fighting systems. Information technologies with outdated architectures should be replaced. The remaining logistical programs should also be cobbled together to create a common operating picture and gain near-real-time assessments of personnel, equipment, and supplies in the logistics pipeline. Command relationships need to be examined and possibly realigned so that DPO responsibilities are commensurate with DPO authority.

The DPO presents a new paradigm for the logistics community. First, tying strategic and operational logistics together into a coherent, end-to-end whole is the key to effective distribution. To measure progress, we must adopt new effects-based metrics that accommodate a systems approach to logistics. Second, logisticians at all levels will have to remain focused on tactical warfare and be willing to let go of peacetime efficiencies for the sake of wartime effectiveness. Bold leadership is needed to achieve results, build trust in the distribution process, and revolutionize our logistical processes to support future campaigns in the war on terrorism.

1. Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 12 April 2001 (as amended through 5 January 2007), http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf, defines tactical level of war as “the level of war at which battles and engagements are planned and executed to achieve military objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces. Activities at this level focus on the ordered arrangement and maneuver of combat elements in relation to each other and to the enemy to achieve combat objectives.”

2. The distribution pipeline and supply chain management are two different concepts. The distribution pipeline is a portion of overall supply chain management. This article focuses primarily upon the distribution pipeline, but the subject cannot be discussed in isolation from supply chain management. They are interrelated and affect each other’s efficiencies. The responsibilities of the DPO do not include many aspects of supply chain management performed by the services, such as forecasting, levels computation, and stockage policies. Logistics, supply chain management, and resource provision do not equal the distribution pipeline or pipeline management. JP 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary, provides the following definitions:

3. JP 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary, provides the following definitions:

4. Tim Kauffman, “DoD Told to Shape Up: OMB and Congress Order Overdue Management Fixes,” Federal Times, 9 May 2005, 1.

5. Blue force trackers enable ground troops to communicate using text messaging and track friendly/enemy forces. Trackers are designed to increase combat effectiveness and reduce friendly-fire incidents. Combat identification panels (CIP) are affixed to tracked and wheeled vehicles to identify them as friendly forces. They are 1/8” thick by 24” high by 30” long and are composed of low-emissivity thermal tape. CIPs are attached flat against vehicle sides and top decks, so when gunners view them through thermal sensors, they see a contrasting cold spot against the hotter surface of the vehicle.

6. These warehouses are stocked with supplies that are shipped overseas using strategic sealift instead of expensive airlift. As of June 2005, these initiatives and others have reduced the cumulative averages of DOD cargo moved by air to the USCENTCOM area of operations from 18 percent since 9/11 to 13 percent since October 2003. Author’s personal papers—documentation of his service as chief, Joint Operations Division, USTRANSCOM, Scott AFB, IL, August–December 2004.

7. Author’s personal papers—documentation of his service as the deputy C4, CFLCC, Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, August 2003–August 2004.

Contributor

COL Bradley E. Smith, USA (BS, Washington and Lee University; MS, University of Southern California; MS, National Defense University), served as chief of the Joint Operations Division for the United States Transportation Command. A veteran of both Gulf wars, he has served in a variety of command and staff positions in the continental United States, Korea, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Haiti, and Germany, including chief, Deployment Division, Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon and commander, 7th Transportation Group (Composite) at Fort Eustis, Virginia. A graduate of the Army Command and General Staff College and School of Advanced Military Studies, Colonel Smith has published several articles in the Military Review.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.