Content area
Full Text
The news article about the new Army Materiel Command (AMC) arrangement with the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC), published in the May-June 2007 issue of Army Logistician, improperly explained the SDDC's command relationships. According to the news article
The change in the status of SDDC means that SDDC is under the administrative control of AMC but the operational control of TRANSCOM.
SDDC is assigned to the U.S. Transportation Command (TRANSCOM) as its Army service component command (ASCC), and the command authority, therefore, is "combatant command" (COCOM). According to Title 10 of the U.S. Code (USC) 164(c)(1), COCOM authority "includes giving authoritative direction to subordinate commands and forces necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command, including authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations, joint training, and logistics" (emphasis added).
Under 10 USC 3013(b), 5013(b), and 8013(b), the secretary of the Army retains oversight for the "internal organization, training, logistics [meaning internal logistics], readiness, control of resources and equipment, mobilization, demobilization, administration, support, and discipline" of SDDC. In doctrinal terms, these are administrative control (ADCON) responsibilities, even after the assignment of SDDC's capabilities to TRANSCOM, which is a functional combatant command. It is important to note that ADCON is not a command relationship but serves as a doctrinal interpretation of the departmental responsibilities outlined in the Federal statute.
My purpose here is not to single out Army Logistician's mistake. Rather, the Army Logistician news article is an example of misrepresenting appropriate command relationships that brings to light a wider professional concern: How well do Army logisticians understand how command relationships can affect logistics responsibilities at all levels? A basic...