ARTICLE

May 2003

Pentagon Reviewing Proposal To Create ‘Logistics Command’

by Sandra I. Erwin

Seeking to fix longstanding snags in military logistics operations, the Pentagon is considering a possible merger of the U.S. Transportation Command and the Defense Logistics Agency.

Shortcomings in what the Defense Department calls the “sustainment” of forces in the field—the ability to keep troops fed, ammunition stocked and vehicles fueled over an extended deployment—have prompted a number of studies and calls for reform.

How to best manage and execute logistics operations has been debated for decades. It is not uncommon to hear that military commanders “don’t trust the system” to deliver the needed supplies on time. The problem becomes particularly acute in wartime, when the logistics pipelines are overstretched.

With the United States at war in Iraq, Afghanistan and with forces deployed in peacekeeping roles elsewhere, the “sustainment” problem will get worse, unless the Pentagon takes action to revamp logistics practices, officials said.

“All things have a time for change. Maybe this is the moment to change,” said Navy Rear Adm. Christopher Ames, director of plans and policy at the U.S. Transportation Command.

Ames believes that combining Transportation Command and DLA under a single organization would go a long way to improve the logistics support to U.S. forces. Commanders in the field today do not get adequate support, due to a lack of synchronization between transportation and supply providers, Ames said in an interview.

“We have two stovepipes,” he said. One is the Transportation Command, responsible for moving equipment and troops. The other is DLA, which purchases and stores supplies.

“Right now, the two are not joined in a harmonious end-to-end system,” said Ames. “We have fragmented into stovepipes two different elements that should be joint: transportation and supply.” The upshot is that the suppliers are not making the most efficient use of transportation resources, he said. “To best support the war fighter, we have to maximize the productivity of each of our precious lift assets.”

Further, the current system is “convoluted,” he explained. Anyone would have a hard time sketching in a wire diagram “the way we order parts, the way we ship them, the way we draw them from warehouses, the way they are moved to vendors, on trains, planes and ships, before they get to the end user.”

A merger of DLA and Transportation Command would create a “single accountable individual” who would be responsible for the entire logistics process, said Ames. “Commanders want a single face to turn to when they want to know ‘Where is the stuff?’”

With separate chains of command, coordination is difficult. The Transportation Command, headed by a four-star officer, reports directly to the defense secretary. Overseeing DLA is the office of the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

Essentially, Ames said, “We have various folks in charge of the supply side and one person in charge of transportation. ... If we could put both under one person and make him accountable for supply and transportation, we would have a better system.”

Ideally, “If one person had responsibility for end-to-end logistics, then he would have knowledge of the requirement, before the supplies roll off the assembly line, he would know when it’s due. He would ensure there is a harmonious marriage between production, transportation to the right type of lift asset and ensure that its arrival at point of debarkation was synchronized with the departure of the appropriate vessel and prioritize accordingly.”

For the supply chain to work efficiently, said Ames, one person has to have “end-to-end visibility” of every step in the process—from the time a soldier in the field makes a request to final delivery.

Under the current setup, supplies from DLA, for example, are handed off to the Transportation Command to be shipped. “But neither one of them provides end-to-end visibility, from source of supply to ultimate destination. Each has its niche of information.”

Ames suggests that the Defense Department should assign a combatant command—a U.S. Logistics Command, for example—to oversee all the functions now done by Transportation Command and DLA.

It is not yet clear whether the office of the defense secretary plans to move forward with the creation of a Logistics Command.

As is the case any time the government contemplates major reorganizations, the bureaucracies tend to protect their “rice bowls.” Ames said resistance to change is expected. “Prudent decision makers will have opportunities to examine both sides and make a reasoned decision. Perhaps that decision breaks rice bowls.”

DLA officials declined to comment for this article. A DLA spokesperson referred all questions to Alan Estevez, the assistant deputy undersecretary of defense for supply chain integration.

Estevez said it is too early to predict what will happen. “I don’t know if there is going to be a merger,” he said. “The Department is looking at it.”

It would be premature to conclude a merger is needed, before the Defense Department establishes the “business process” that should be followed, in order to improve the logistics support to front-line forces, Estevez said. “Any organizational fixes should follow the business process.” His office is working on ways to improve business practices, under a program called Future Logistics Enterprise.

To say that combining Transportation Command and DLA would fix the gaps in the system would be a flawed premise, he noted, because “you would not be addressing the entire supply chain, but only one supplier and the transportation provider, rather than all the suppliers.” DLA is one among several military agencies and private entities that purchase and manage supplies, Estevez said. “There are lots of ways to improve the process. Merging DLA and Transportation Command does not establish a single point of contact in the supply chain.”

Short of a merger, he added, there should be greater collaboration between the suppliers and the transportation providers, making more information available to each other. The key issue, said Estevez, “is not whether we are making the optimum use of the transportation. It’s whether we are optimally supporting the demand of the customer.”

Traditionally, commanders lack confidence in the system, because “they haven’t built a strong relationship” with suppliers. Under the Future Logistics Enterprise, he said, “we are pushing the coordination and collaboration between customers [war fighters] and suppliers. ... In wartime, there are constraints in the pipeline, so the customer has to prioritize.”

Back To Top