Talk:Unified combatant command

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article seems to link if you type in combatant commanders, however if you type in combatant commander (singular, not plural) you get directed to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combatant_commander

Someone might want to fix/clarify this. I'm not sure how to do it.

The proposed unified medical command seems to have been shot down [1]. On the other hand, Africa Command appears to be a done deal [2]. Morinao 01:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still not announced as of 16 January (searched high and low) and only found this most recent dialogue [3]; even if announced, it will not be a reality until UCP establishes it. See this report which seems to sum up status best[4] HJ 11:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections: <Unified Combatant Command (COCOM) formerly known as a regional "Commander-in Chief">

CINC was the term or the head of the combatant command, not the command itself. CINCPACOM, for example, was head of USPACOM.

<The Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 added a new level of commander-in-chief (CINC) to the U.S. military's chain of command. >

Regional Unified Commands (USPACOM, USEUCOM, etc.) and their CINCs existed well before the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act. They have existed since about 1947, and some date to World War II. I'll use USPACOM as an example. 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)~~ http://www.pacom.mil/about/history.shtml HISTORY OF U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND

The U.S. Pacific Command was established as a unified command on 1 January 1947, and it is the oldest and largest of the United States' unified commands.

The present U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM) includes areas originally assigned to two other unified commanders. Responsibilities of the Far East Command were assumed on 1 July 1957. That same day the command assumed some of the responsibilities of the Alaskan Command, and individual Army and Air Force component commands for the Pacific were established in Hawaii.

In October 1957, the then Commander in Chief, Pacific Command (CINCPAC) headquarters was moved from Makalapa to Camp H.M. Smith, which is also the headquarters of the Commander, Marine Forces Pacific. CINCPAC also served concurrently as Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet until January 1958, when the U.S. Pacific Fleet became a separate component with its own commander.

Added responsibilities were assigned to CINCPAC on 1 January 1972 for military forces and elements in the Indian Ocean, Southern Asia, and the Arctic. The area of responsibility was further expanded on 1 May 1976 to the east coast of Africa. This enlarged the Pacific Command to more than 50 percent of the earth's surface, an area of over 100 million square miles.

Another enlargement of the USPACOM area took place in October 1983 when CINCPAC was assigned responsibility for the People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mongolia, and the Republic of Madagascar. CINCPAC was also redesignated U.S. Commander in Chief, Pacific Command (USCINCPAC).

In 1986, the Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization Act expanded, as well as codified, the authority of the commanders of the unified commands to carry out their assigned missions and to employ combatant forces provided by the individual Services. 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)~~

<Regional CINCs were created in order to have a local supreme commander who could exercise unified command and control across service boundaries, ideally eliminating or diminishing interservice rivalries. >

Yes, and this practice started in World War II. The Pacific, for example, consisted of different area commands that were unified. General MacArthur was in charge of South West Pacific Area, while Admiral Nimitz was in charge of the Central Pacific. Each commanded assigned forces from other US (and sometimes Allied) sevices.

The rest of the article looks good.

CCDR appears to be a made up acronym - the military and the rest of the world uses 'COCOM' for Combatant Command (as in a Unified Combatant Command). I can find no reference outside of Wikipedia's article on Goldwater-Nichols and this page to the use of CCDR as the acronym/initialism for Combatant Commands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.197.115 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCDR is the official DoD acronym for the Combatant Commander, not the Combatant Command. However it's not as catchy as CINC used to be... COCOM refers not to the Combatant Command itself, but to the inherent Command Authority exercised by a Combatant Commander, which cannot be re-delegated to a JFCC or JTF Commander. RicJac (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I amended the article to clarify the distinction between combatant commander (CCDR) and the combatant command (COCOM) command authority, to include specific citations of JP 1, JP 1-02, and 10 USC 164. While the distinction is clear in US federal law and military policy/doctrine, it is often confused in everyday conversation.Preuninger (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still confusing to the average layman - it needs to be rewritten for clarity. - BilCat (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140209/DEFREG02/302090011 "The plan is usually reviewed every two years and has not been updated since April 2011."

That seems to disagree with the latest edits WRT annual updates. Hcobb (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

@

MOS:MILTERMS). A unified combatant command is a type of military unit, like an army, fleet, company, etc. The proper names of UCCs are capitalized (U.S. Strategic Command, U.S. Pacific Command, etc.), but the term unified combatant command should never be capitalized, because it's never part of a proper name of a particular unit. It's always a generic unit type. (Even the joint pubs usually get this right, and military writing is NOTORIOUS for inappropriate capitalization of common nouns.) Holy (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I see that you reverted my entire edit, making LOTS of generic terms capitalized, which should be lowercase. For example, "area of responsibility" is not a proper noun. You shouldn't have reverted; you should have just changed the specific terms that you (mistakenly) thought to be proper nouns. Please undo your reversion. Thanks! Holy (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"* Generic words for institutions, organizations, companies, etc., and rough descriptions of them (university, college, hospital, high school) do not take capitals. . . " (

MOS:INSTITUTIONS) Holy (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Well... no. You mixed in over 50 different changes with one edit. Some caps, some dashes, but all minor. I don't agree with all your changes from caps, and I think that you should have proposed some of the changes beforehand. The thing to do now is to let the last version stand as is, and wait for the community to weigh in, to see if there can be a consensus achieved on the issue. Then whatever changes are agreed upon, can then be implemented. There's no big fire to be put out here, we can allow ourselves some patience. -

^theWOLFchild 19:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Thewolfchild: You just undid a large amount of good editorial work and copy editing, and you only seem to have a disagreement with a small number of the edits. And you haven't even bothered to answer my clear explanation—in which I applied Wikipedia standards—for why your interpretation was not correct, regarding those edits. So now we are waiting around for a discussion that may never occur, in which the crucial arguments will simply be what I've already put forth and what is clearly explained in longstanding Wikipedia policy (and is consistent with almost every other style standard in the English-speaking world). After that discussion, someone will have to go back and make all the same edits that I originally spent time on. Since you initiated this dispute, made a huge reversion to my editing efforts, have not yet discussed the issues at hand, and dismiss my asking you to undo the reversion, what do you propose so that we may go forward? Holy (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

@

^theWOLFchild 19:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The DoD style guide dictates how things should be written. "Combatant Command" is in fact capitalized. I'm not arguing the rules of grammar, I'm just pointing out they don't necessarily matter if they happen to differ from our guidance. Anyone who's ever written an eval understands official grammar rules are at best more like general guidelines, or simply don't apply at all. http://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/iss_process/Writing_Style_Guide.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.8.57 (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military writing is notorious for overusing capitalization and for inconsistency of style and format. It's also notorious for its inconsistency with style standards that are generally accepted by the rest of the world. The DoD style guide is NOT Wikipedia's style guide or standard. Even in the style guide that you cite, it's very easy to find inconsistencies, even in the same sentence. Here's an example: " “COCOM” refers to “(combatant command) command authority” and not to the Combatant Command itself." In this single sentence, the guide uses combatant command generically twice, and uses title case once and sentence case in the other! One of the nearby section titles (also note that the guide uses title case for section titles, which Wikipedia does not do) is "Acronyms That Don’t Need to be Established." Note that the verb be is left in lowercase, but since it is not an article or a short preposition or conjunction, it should be capitalized when using title case. This violates most other style standards, including Wikipedia's. In summary, it's easy to see that your cited style guide is not appropriate here, and even contradicts itself routinely. Holy (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel should be under the color for EUCOM, not CENTCOM. The current map is incorrect. See ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.246.254.12 (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States Space Command was reestablished today, but I can't find any sources as to whether it is a geographic or functional command. Anyone know? Jak525 (talk) 21:17, Thursday, August 29, 2019 (UTC)

Given that space itself is not a subject of geography, I would not consider it possible that its "geographic". Added as functional. 24.4.13.32 (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add comment talk of Gen. John Raymond - head of SpaceCom @ https://www.c-span.org/video/?466504-1/general-john-raymond-outlines-us-space-command-priorities O.Mutz (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to Functional based on CRS Report IF10542, Dec 2018 @ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF10542 Scotty.tiberius (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That report is from December 2018. At the time it was anticipated to be functional. When it was established in 2019 it was a geographic command. More up to date sources can be found on its website.Garuda28 (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing move to

Proposal to change the map of the different regions of jurisdiction to include Israel as part of Central Command. I haven't verified this, but the Wikipedia article on Central Command says that Israel was added to its jurisdiction in 2021. Placeholderer (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]