NAVAL WAR COLLEGE

Monterey Program

NATIONAL SECURITY DECISION MAKING FINAL EXAMINATION

By

Ian S. Davis

Major, USA

Fall 2010 – Section 3

A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Naval War College in partial satisfaction of the
requirements of the Department of National Security Decision Making.

The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily
endorsed by the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy.

Signature: /s/ I. S. Davis .

Ian S. Davis

Date: 10 DEC 2010

Signature: /s/ J. S. Breemer

Dr. J. S. Breemer
Professor, NSD
 The affects of global climate change have created both opportunity and vulnerability for

the nations that have economic and security interests in the Arctic. According to the 2010 U.S.

National Security Strategy:

The United States is an Arctic Nation with broad and fundamental interests in the Arctic

region, where we seek to meet our national security needs, protect the environment,

responsibly manage resources, account for indigenous communities, support scientific

research, and strengthen international cooperation on a wide range of issues.[CITATION

Oba101 \p 50 \l 1033 ]

To address U.S. national interests in the Arctic as outlined in the 2010 National Security Strategy

(NSS 2010), the Joint Staff conducted an analysis of its current structure and generated five

course of action pertaining to controlling U.S. Department of Defense activities in the Arctic: 1)

maintain the current policy of shared responsibility of the Arctic between U.S. European

Command (USEUCOM), U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), and U.S. Pacific

Command (USPACOM); 2) designate USNORTHCOM as the supported command; 3) designate

USEUCOM as the supported command; 4) designate USPACOM as the supported command;

and 5) establish an new combatant command—U.S. Arctic Command (USARCTCOM). Based

on its current mission statement, capacity for joint and whole of government (WOG) integration,

and existing international cooperative security partnership with Canada, the Joint Staff

recommends that USNORTHCOM be designated as the supported command for the Arctic. The

USNORTHCOM option maximizes unity of effort between the U.S Government and partner

nations, while minimizing the requirement for additional resources (i.e. a new combatant

command) in order to protect U.S. national interests in the Arctic.

Best Fit with Current Mission

The current mission of USNOTHCOM, along with its established collaborative security

infrastructure with Canada, makes it best suited to immediately assume responsibility of the

Arctic with minimum additional resources. According the U.S. Department of Defense Unified

Command Plan 2008, USNORTHCOM, USEUCOM, and USPACOM currently share

responsibility for operations in the Arctic.[CITATION Dep08 \l 1033 ] Climatic change has

increased freedom of navigation in the Arctic, thus increasing the level of private, commercial,

and military traffic throughout the region. Undoubtedly, greater access to the Arctic is sure to

cause a sudden rush of U.S. private and government entities into the area, thus, creating an

increasingly complex security environment in terms of protecting U.S. interests in the remote

region.

USNORTHCOM’s mission is to conduct homeland defense, civil support, and security

cooperation to defend and secure the U. S. and its interests. Its area of responsibility includes

air, land, and sea approaches to the continental United States, Alaska, Canada, Mexico, and the

surrounding water out to approximately 500 nautical miles. The commander of

USNORTHCOM, Admiral James A. Winnefeld, Jr., also commands the North American

Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), a bi-national command responsible for aerospace

warning, aerospace control, and maritime warning for Canada, Alaska, and the continental

United States. [ CITATION Dep102 \l 1033 ]

USNORTHCOM’s operational focus on protecting the U.S. Homeland makes it uniquely

postured to assume a geographically larger area of responsibility in the Arctic without distracting

from its current mission. In cooperation with the Department of Homeland Defense,

USNORTHCOM leverage the ice-breaking and well as search and rescue assets of the United
States Coast Guard (USCG) to provide freedom of navigation and protect U.S. interests in the

harsh Arctic environment. To the contrary, USPACOM and USEUCOM would have to divert

resources away from their current missions to play a larger role in the arctic and do not possess

an integrated defense system the likes of NORAD. Furthermore, USPACOM and USEUCOM

do not have maritime assets available that USNORTHCOM does though its habitual relationship

with the USCG. While a new USARCTCOM could be specifically tailored for the Arctic, it

would requires an increase in Department Defense spending and may not provide any more

capability than USNORTHCOM currently possesses. Therefore, USNORTHCOM’s current

posture and security infrastructure makes it best suited to be the supported command in the

Arctic.

Whole of Government Approach

USNORTHCOM’s organizational structure and geographic disposition provides inherent

integration with the interagency partners of the U.S. Government (USG) and enables whole of

government approach to the Arctic as outlined in NSS 2010.[CITATION Oba101 \p

14–16 \l 1033 ] As an inherent task to their mission of support to civil authority, the

command is integrated with the local and state government to assist with crisis planning and

disaster recovery capabilities to the lowest level. The command is fully integrated with the

Department of Homeland Defense, other USG agencies, non-governmental organizations

(NGOs), the academic community, and the private sector to provide unity of effort for Homeland

Defense.[ CITATION Ren10 \l 1033 ]

USNORTHCOM has standing headquarters, as well as multiple joint and interagency

task forces, in more than nine different locations throughout the United States and has daily

interaction with state and federal agencies that have interests in the Arctic. Geographic
proximity and persistent integration with U.S. entities that have ambitions in the Arctic provide

USNORTHCOM a unique capability to synchronize military efforts and protect U.S. national

interests in the Arctic using a WOG approach that con not be matched by USPACOM or

USEUCOM. Thus, USNORTHCOM is currently structurally and geographically postured to

assume additional responsibility in the Arctic using a WOG approach and is best suited to secure

U.S. national interests as dictated in NSS 2010.

Cooperative Security with International Partners

The recent formation of the Tri-command between the U.S. and Canada provides

USNORTHCOM the optimal platform for employing a transparent cooperative, and highly

responsive theater security mechanism to protect and deconflict U.S. interests in the Arctic. The

command was established in September 2009 because of a common security environment and

shared values for protecting U.S. and Canadian interests in the region. The Tri-command is

composed of USNORTHCOM, NORAD, and Canadian Command (Canada COM) and provides

a collective security apparatus that integrates and synchronizes U.S. and Canadian defense

activities to ensure timely and coordinated response to defense and security challenges to North

America. [ CITATION Uni091 \l 1033 ] A recent study by the Center for New American Study

echoes the same recommendation that USNORTHCOM should be the supported command for

the Arctic because the U.S. territorial waters and the resources within its Economic Exclusive

Zone (EEZ) already fall within USNORTHCOM’s area of responsibility.[CITATION Car101 \p

85 \l 1033 ]

Canada also has concerns in the Arctic related to sovereignty, natural resources, and its

own national security. The nation is currently working with U.S., Denmark, Russia, and Norway

to develop a joint surveillance and security framework for the Arctic polar region.[CITATION
Wic10 \p 73 \l 1033 ] By employing a “by-with-through” strategy with Canada, the U.S. can

protect U.S. national interests in the Arctic through a collective security engagement plan that is

consistent the Obama Administration’s guidance to build international alliances as directed

throughout NSS 2010.[ CITATION Oba101 \l 1033 ] While USPACOM and USEUCOM do

have theater collective security agreements, their agreements do not provide the unity of effort

and action that the Tri-command can for protecting U.S. national interests in the Arctic and

protecting the U.S. Homeland.

Conclusion

The Joint Staff recommends that USNORTHCOM should be designated the supported

commander for the entire Arctic because the option maximizes unity of effort between the U.S

Government and partner nations, while minimizing the requirement for additional resources in

order to protect U.S. national interests in the Arctic for three reasons. First, the current mission

of USNORTHCOM, along with its established collaborative security infrastructure with Canada,

makes it best suited to immediately assume responsibility of the Arctic with minimum resources.

Second, USNORTHCOM’s current organizational structure and geographic disposition provides

inherent integration with the interagency partners of the U.S. Government (USG) and enables

whole of government approach to the Arctic as outlined in NSS 2010. Third, Tri-command

Framework between the U.S. and Canada provides USNORTHCOM the optimal platform for

employing a transparent cooperative, and highly responsive theater security mechanism to

protect and deconflict U.S. interests in the Arctic. Of all of the options analyzed,

USNORTHCOM is best suited to immediately assume responsibility for the Arctic region

without degradation of their current priorities and can do so with their current assets by

leveraging existing regional cooperative security infrastructure with Canada.

 Bibliography
United States-Canada Tri-Command. "Framework for Enhanced Military Cooperation among
North American Aerospace Defense Command, United States Northern Command, and
Canada Command." USNORTHCOM Tri-Command. September 2009.
www.northcom.mil/news/Signed%20Framework%20Sep%2009.pd (accessed November
5, 2010).

Wicks, Craig. "Canadian Sovereignty: A Pragmatic Look at an Arctic Nemasis and How
Surveillance can Finally Vanquish this Beast." Canadian Forces College. February 19,
2010. http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/csc/csc35/mds/wicks.pdf (accessed December
2, 2010).

Carmen, Herbert E., Christine Parthemore, and Will Rogers. "Broadening Horizons: Climate
Change and the U.S. Armed Forces." Center for a New American Security. April 2010.
http://www.cnas.org/node/4453 (accessed December 3, 2010).

Department of Defense. Unified Command Plan 2008. December 17, 2008.

http://www.defense.gov/specials/unifiedcommand/ (accessed December 8, 2010).

———. United States Northern Command. November 5, 2010. http://www.northcom.mil

(accessed November 5, 2010).

Obama, Barack. "National Security Strategy." The White House. May 27, 2010.
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss.../national_security_strategy.pdf (accessed
May 28, 2010).

Renuart, Jr., Victor E. Statement of General Victor E. Renuart, Jr., USAF Commander United
States Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command Before the
Senate Armed Services Committee 11 March 2010. Statement, Washington: United States
Senate, 2010.