United States Department of Defense

Posted: December 22nd, 2022

United States Department of Defense

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

United States Department of Defense

Introduction

The United States Department of Defense is a vital arm of the federal government with regard to functionality. DOD provides employment to millions of people, while millions of others depend on the federal agency indirectly, and its primary role is to marshal officers to oversee national and international security. Title 10 of the U.S. Code provides the legal framework upon which DOD functions, and describes the roles and responsibility of the various facets of the military. The report illustrates how the DOD attempts to engage in acts that would be termed as taking social responsibility, and how the federal agency had to deal with several scenarios depicting ethical dilemma. Other than the President who is the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, the Secretary of Defense heads most of the operations within DOD, and manages financial activities within the Department. Despite the ethical constraints, DOD tries as much as possible to be accountable in its activities and even subjects its operations to GAO, which audits its services. The analysis elaborates how DOD tries to maintain relationship with other federal departments, and how the group strives to manage its budget, which is the largest of all federal agencies. The study makes clear the challenges, opportunities, and trends impacting on the DOD’s operations, and how the groups tries to deal with disturbing and disruptive factors. The DOD is likely to advance its operations if it addresses some of the ethical concerns and challenges derailing its attempts to reach the stipulated goals and objectives.

Organization Context

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is part of the executive arm of the federal government mandated with the task of supervising and coordinating all state agencies and government functions directly linked to the U.S. Armed Forces and national security. DOD operates as the largest employer globally with almost 1.3 million active personnel serving in different positions such as airmen, soldiers, sailors, and marines (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019).  In addition, the DOD is attached to more than 750,010 civilian personnel and more than 812,000 service members in the National Guard and Reserve (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). Also attached to the DOD are more than 600,000 workers in the private sector offering services and aid based on contractual terms to the Department, not to mention other thousands of workers in the defense industrial avenue and their providers of raw materials and equipment. Also part of the DOD family is more than 2.5 million military retirees who receive work benefits, thus making DOD a big group (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). DOD’s military operators and civilian workers serve in each time zone and climatic condition, and more than 500,000 of the agency’s personnel serve in foreign nations.

DOD has its headquarters at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and its primary objective is to offer the military forced required to prevent war and protect the country’s security. DOD’s mission as provided for in the constitution is to offer combat-necessary military forces required to prevent war and safeguard the nation’s security (Polmar, 2005). The division offers a lethal and efficient joint team that put together with America’s network of affiliates and allies sustains the country’s impact and improves safety and success. The mission of the DOD depends on the country’s military, civilian, and equipments being at the suitable place at the right time, with the required abilities, and in the necessary measures to safeguard the country’s interests and desires. DOD’s mission is also dependent on innovators, alliances, universities, corporations, and partnerships, as well as the encouragement the agency get from the Americans (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). The need to achieve the mission has never been so necessary as the U.S. comes face to face with competitive and more dangerous global security environment than has been witnessed for many years. 

The DOD’s scope of duty encompasses administering, overseeing, and regulating the planning for and use of global or military personnel and the programs necessary to the defense objective. The DOD shall utilize armed forces to support and uphold the constitution of the U.S. against all enemies, as well as ensure by timely and suitable military action, the security of the U.S., its possessions, and crucial interests (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). The DOD also strives to maintain and utilize armed forces to uphold and uplift the national legislations and desires of the U.S.

Legal Foundation

Other than the constitutional framework underpinning the functions of the DOD, it is vital to acquire clear insight on the legal aspects outlying the federal agency. Title 10, U.S. Code Armed Forces as amended through January 7, 2011 outlines the legal aspect of the DOD, while detailing the legal and structural features of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Reserve Components (Shanor & Hogue, 2003). Title 10 offers the legal base for the organization, missions, and roles of each of the military forces as well as the U.S DOD (Shanor & Hogue, 2003). Title 10 which is now applicable came into effect following the reevaluation of the previous Title 10 and its subsequent fusion Title 34 through an act of Congress in 1956.

Other than Title 10 of the U.S. Code, other relevant legislations have significant impact on the functioning of the DOD. The National Security Act of 1947 which came into effect following Senate’s confirmation of James Forrestal as the initial Secretary of Defense is very instrumental because it commenced the process of restructuring the military (Shanor & Hogue, 2003). The Act that formed the NSC (National Security Council) and the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) fused the Department of the Navy and The Department of War into the NME (National Military Establishment). The National Security Act actually laid the foundation for the formation of the DOD (Shanor & Hogue, 2003). The Defense Reorganization Act of 1950 is also very influential in the functions of the DOD because it helped promote flexibility and simplicity in the military’s statutory framework following the coming together of the armed forces (Hogan, 2000). The Defense Reorganization Act abolished the channeling of funds directly each specific technical group, and instead mandated the Secretary to make distributions and determine allocations (Shanor & Hogue, 2003). The Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1984 is important to the functions of the DOD because it permits appropriations for the procurement by the military of missiles, aircraft, ammunition, combat vehicles, and other equipment. All these regulations are captured in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, and are continuously reviewed to ensure efficiency and effectiveness.

Connection to Public Service

The DOD appreciates the need to engage with members of the public through various services as Americans would expect any other large organization to act. One of the ways through which the DOD acts to fulfill the societal ethos is through its military health system (MHS), which is an enterprise within the federal agency that offers health care to ongoing duty officers and Veterans (Shanor & Hogue, 2003). The MHS’ mission, which is to offer health assistance for the full range of military activities and sustain the health requirements of all who are entitled to care also give aid to dependents of ongoing service providers, as well as to those of retirees, and in some instances former spouses (Shanor & Hogue, 2003). The TRICARE extended the beneficiaries of the MHS to their dependents aged 66 and over, and such provisions were captured in the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services that proceeded TRICARE. The state allocates a budget of $50 billion to the MHS, thus showing how military clinics and hospitals act as the core of the DOD. It is also evident that other than benefitting active officers, the MHS provides health care services to many other people who do not provide direct service, thus contributing towards a better and healthier nation.

The DOD engages in community social responsibility (CSR) in various aspects, which allows it to act it a way the society expects. U.S. Army soldiers, for example, joined Estonians in planting tree seedling in Estonia in commemoration of the Earth Day in April 28, 2017 (Capers, 2017). The military groups that participated in the communal exercise came from 4^th Infantry Division, 68^th Armor Regiment, Chaos Company and 1^st Battalion, and were sent to Eastern Europe to take part in Operation Atlantic Resolve, depicting America’s dedication to NATO and showing good faith to Estonia (Capers, 2017).

Ethical Issues and Dilemmas

Even though the DOD tries as much as possible to maintain transparency in its operations, it has experienced ethical concerns and dilemmas that might have tarnished the group’s reputation significantly. The Pentagon, for instance, failed to expose a $125 billion in administrative misappropriation in its activities following fears that the Congress would utilize the revelation to cut the defense allocation (budget), based on the findings and classified memos acquired by the Washington Post (Whitlock & Woodward, 2016). The leaders at Pentagon has requested for the report to make some adjustments on its spending, but after it became apparent that the Department had engaged in wasteful spending than anticipated the defense leaders moved so quickly to suppress it by discrediting and restraining the outcome. The report revealed in January 2015 set a clear path for the DOD to save 125 billion USD for over 5 years, although this would not require the laying off of civil servants or slashing military personnel (Whitlock & Woodward, 2016). Instead, it would foster saving by streamlining bureaucracy through early retirements and attrition, curtailing high-cost contractors, and by putting IT into better use.

A joint effort between representatives from McKinsey and Company and members of the Defense Business Board produced a report of a study in 2015 detailing how the Pentagon is planning to use more than a quarter of the $580 billion budget on primary business functions such as property management, HR, accounting, and logistics (Whitlock & Woodward, 2016). The study showed how the $125 billion allured the military who saw this as an opportunity to better troops and acquire superior weapons (Whitlock & Woodward, 2016). Others, based on the report, thought the allocation would be used to renovate the country’s nuclear arsenal that is aging, or facilitate the operation expenses for at least 49 Army brigades. Some players within Pentagon became worried that exposing the extravagant use of money could instigate reduction of allocation to DOD, especially if the report reaches the White House and Congress. Pentagon went ahead to suppress the plan, and placed secrecy measures on the data making up the entire study to make sure not replicates the findings. Furthermore, the Pentagon withdrawn a 77-page document from its website, dealings that later generated ethical dilemmas when the study became public.

The Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Defense released a report in 2015 showing that the American Army made incorrect adjustments of nearly $6.5 trillion to accounting entries. The report shows how the Army failed to release official invoices and receipts to validate the unconvincing figures, and simply made most of them up (Paltrow, 2016). The huge errors rendered the Defense Department’s 2015 financial statements not useful because Army managers and the DOD could not use the data in their accounting files when coming up with resource and management decisions. The manipulation of figures is regarded as the latest incident of extensive accounting errors affecting the DOD for decades (Paltrow, 2016). The 2015 incident reaffirms a case in 2013 when the Defense Department committed similar mistake by falsifying its accounts, which made it difficult to know how the federal division uses public funds (Paltrow, 2016). The 2015 incident largely affected the Army’s General Fund, the bigger of the military’s two accounts, and it is unfortunate the Army did not keep safely all transactional data. The issue continues to raise ethical concerns among different stakeholders with Franklin Spinney, a critic of planning operations by the DOD and a retired military strategist and analyst for the Pentagon, questioning where all the money goes (Paltrow, 2016). Spinney feels that the accounting issues go beyond mere need to balance books with the need to create more stringent auditing bodies and regulations.

Management and Leadership

The President appoints the Secretary of Defense following the consent and advice of the Senate, and it is the appointee who heads the DOD. Title 10 of the constitution makes it clear that other than being the head of the DOD, the Secretary serves as the chief vice to the head of state in all matters pertaining to the Department (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). Furthermore, the Secretary’s statutory authority is acquired from the constitutional authorities because the constitution places all military authority to the President and the Congress (Hogan, 2000). The Secretary of Defense and other subordinate officials in the Department usually exercise military control because it is not possible for the President or the Congress to take part in every activity concerning the Department, considering the other tasks they must do. (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019) The OSD (Office of the Secretary of Defense) comprises of the Secretary of Defense and his or her deputy, and is regarded as the major staff element of the Department in terms of resource management, planning, policy creation, oversight, and evaluation of programs.

The DOD is under the leadership of other people whose influence may not be direct. Working close to the Secretary of Defense is the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) that is responsible for offering advice on various state agencies and bodies. The JCS provides guidance to the Homeland Security Council, the Secretary of Defense, the President, and the National Security Council (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). The Joint Chiefs of Staff comprises of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the VCJCS (Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), and SEAC (Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman) who all work towards guiding the Secretary of Defense on matters relating to the DOD (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019).

Power and Civic Engagement

Now that it is clear DOD derives its powers from Title 10 of the U.S.C, it is vital to understand as well how the federal agency promotes civic engagement. The DOD organizes special days when military personnel interact with members of the public on different issues such as conserving the environment through cleanliness programs and other initiatives (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). The DOD shares with members of the public on different issues impacting on social wellbeing such as the need to seek education, and the importance of taking part in civic practices such as voting.

Accountability

The team overseeing operations in the DOD understands the need to observe accountability and tries to employ different mechanisms of achieving transparency. Before paying much attention to how the DOD strives to achieve accountability, it is vital to look at the meanings of accountability and responsibility from a DOD perspective (Shafritz et al., 2017). Accountability refers to the obligation enforced by lawful order, regulation, or law on officer or any other person for maintaining correct record for funds, property, and documents. The person having the duty may or may not have the real custody of the funds, property, or documents. Whereas accountability largely focuses on records from a DOD perspective, responsibility is focused mainly with care, safekeeping, and custody. The DOD is usually open to Government Accountability Office investigations of the Department of Defense carried out by GAO (Government Accountability Office), which is the investigative branch of the U.S. Congress (Shafritz et al., 2017). GAO enjoys a good position to investigate the DOD because it is only answerable to the legislature. Actually, no other federal agency has the capacity to assess federal departments with the same independence as GAO other than the President.

Other than being subject to the scrutiny of GAO, DOD Instruction 5000.64 outlines a guideline for achieving accountability at the Department. The Deputy Secretary of Defense released a Memorandum on July 13, 2018 requiring the DOD to develop an accountability guideline on how to manage the Department’s equipment and other items (property), and this also in accordance with DOD Directive 5134.01 pushed the federal agency to establish a policy. The framework offers requirements and procedures and assigns roles for accounting for DOD’s tangible property and equipment in line with Section 901 of Title 31 of the U.S.C and Title 40 of the U.S.C (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). The policy tries to outline the needs that match the accountability view of property management, which boosts the lifecycle management of equipment as well as documentation of lifecycle deals and happenings or events.

Furthermore, the policy complements the financial and accounting reporting needs in DoD 7000.14-R, and assists property managers, financial and accounting leaders, and other managers understand well their roles and responsibilities (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). Section 4.4 of the policy, for example, insinuates that whereas the DoD may lack the physical ownership or custody, for the purposes of upholding appropriate property transparency and for reasons of financial reporting, DOD features must create and maintain records and accountability for state property of any worth loaned to outside parties such as foreign governments, state and local administrations, and federal agencies (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). The policy in Section 4.7 elaborates how to achieve accountability for items on transit by stating that firms shall retain accountability for items they put in transit until it reaches a point when the receiver officially recognizes the receipt. More essentially, Section 4.8 provides insight on how to achieve accountability when carrying out transfers by implying that exchanges from one arm of DOD to the other must be differentiated between transfers of custody and accountability (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). Transfer of custody according to the policy compels the sending DOD party to uphold accountability of the transferred item. The regulation directs that transparent record be maintained, and documentation of the receipt from the receiving DOD faction will reflect the delivered assets to entail unique identifiers. A suitable example of transfers of custody is the shipment of property to be put in a storage facility. Transfer of accountability, on the other hand, withdraws the role of reporting from the sending DOD faction, and the receiving parties assume the full responsibility of reporting for the goods (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). DOD understands how failing to observe accountability could affect stakeholders such as the government and members of the public, which rely on the Department to reinforce and maintain national security.

It is vital to mention the DOD EMCMM (Equipment Management Capability Maturity Model), which as provided for in 5000.64, is designed to help DOD with recognizing and applying metrics to evaluate and report maturity levels in property management. The model helps to achieve some order in managing property, and gives guidance on how to attain transparency in the use of these equipment or items (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). So far, the structure has been influential in promoting accountability in DOD and the teams in charge of its functioning continue to make adjustments that would improve its functioning.

Even as the DOD tries to be accountable in its operations in GAO audits, it emerges as the only federal agency that has not passed the most audits since all agencies were required to pass such evaluations by the Chief Financial Officers Act (1990). More recently, GAO learnt of 100 million USD wasted airline fees when the Department purchased tickets that were not used for more than six years, and did not ask for refund as much as the option was available (Shafritz et al., 2017). The GAO blames the DOD for lack of accountability in other instances where a worker serving for the Department used the agency’s account number to pay for more than 70 airline tickets amounting to more than 60,000 USD. He then sold the tickets at lower prices to family members and work colleagues. GAO also unveiled an accountability issue where a worker agreed to accidentally claiming refund for 10,000 USD worth of airline ticket that the Department had paid for.   

Intergovernmental Relations

The Office of the Secretary of Defense oversees intergovernmental relationship with other state agencies, departments, and organizations. Based on the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 284, the Secretary of Defense has the mandate to offer certain aid to other federal agencies or departments, as well as foreign law enforcement groups, and tribal, local, and state agencies, to enforce counterdrug initiatives, or to prevent transnational organized criminal acts (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). 10 U.S.C. 284, for example, allows the DOD to collaborate with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation to foster the development of roads, as well as other activities such as erecting street lights and putting up road blocks with the motive of restraining drug smugglers (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). A guidance report issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2014 showed such practices entail engineering aid for mobility and counter-mobility reasons, particularly around the southern border.

The DOD is very keen on how it works with other departments, and always sticks to the provisions of 10 U.S.C. Even after President Trump instructed the Secretary of Defense to offer assistance to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in securing the southern border, Under Secretary of Defense declared that the law does not clarify how 10 U.S.C. 284 would be applied to help DHS to enforce security along borders. DOD responded by saying it would provide prompt response to DHS if it puts forwards a request based on the directives of 10 U.S.C. 284.

Public Financial Management and Budgeting

The team in charge of the DOD pays so much attention on preparing the budget and other financial allocations considering that the Department’s spending accounts for the largest share of federal spending. Actually, the DOD spending in the financial year 2017 accounted for 16% of the American federal budget, and 48% of the state discretionary spending, although the amount does not include the money used to acquire certain military-connected items such as production, research on nuclear weapons, and cleanup services (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). The allocation does not also cover spending that is not military-related such as the counter-terrorism attempts by the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and intelligence operations by the National Security Agency.

 The DOD was allocated $533.8 billion in 2010, which increased to $585 billion in 2015. The budgetary allocation increased significantly in 2019 when the Department was allocated nearly $686.4 billion in discretionary spending and about $8.9 billion in mandatory spending all amounting to $695.1 billion (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019).  The Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Committee on Armed Services are responsible for evaluating the budgetary allocations of the DOD, although the National Defense Authorization Act defines allotment to the Department.

Challenges, Opportunities and Trends

The DOD while carrying out its operations needs to consider the impact of challenges that could interfere with its operations. One of the major challenges for DOD is dealing with the increased threats of terrorism globally, while it also has to be part in calming the tension emanating from Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. The DOD is also experiencing some challenges in enhancing space operations as well as in missile detection, which may provide some loopholes for attacks (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). Considering the available opportunities is important to DOD because this could provide the chance to make necessary improvements in particular areas (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). The DOD can take advantage of the technological growth that is evident in many areas to improve operations and to adopt better defense mechanisms. The team in charge of operations at the DOD should know the trends that could influence its operations and take necessary measures to achieve the desires goals and objectives (U.S. Department of Defense, 2019). Using superior technology may be regarded as the latest trends in military operations same to the need to pay more emphasis on global security.

Conclusion

The study provides adequate insight on nature and functions of the DOD, which is one of the federal agencies tasked and mandated to coordinate and supervise all functions and agencies of the state directly linked to the U.S. Army and national security. DOD is under the leadership of the Secretary of Defense, and functions under the legal provisions of Title 10 of the U.S. Constitution. The report elaborates how the group attempts to act in ways that meet social requirements by trying to engage members of the public in different capacities. The group attempts to achieve accountability in its activities by subjecting its operations to the scrutiny of GAO, which enjoys a unique position to audit DOD, and also interacts with other agencies on various avenues. DOD gets the largest budgetary allocation, and might be the reason why some cases of misappropriations are emerging. The Department has put in place bodies in charge of examining the use of allocated money to achieve transparency as required by various legislations. The study expounds on the challenges, opportunities, and trends impacting on DOD, and describes how the group must overcome its challenges to reach its mission.

References

Capers, S. (2017). U.S. soldiers plant trees in honor of Earth Day. Retrieved from army.mil/article/186995/us_soldiers_plant_trees_in_honor_of_earth_day

Hogan, M. (2000). A cross of iron: Harry S. Truman and the origins of the national security state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Paltrow, S. (2016). U.S. Army fudged its accounts by trillions of dollars, auditory finds. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army/u-s-army-fudged-its-accounts-by-trillions-of-dollars-auditor-finds-idUSKCN10U1IG

Polmar, N. (2005). Defense organization. New York, NY: Naval Institute Press. 

Shafritz, J. M., Russell, E. W., Borick, C. P., & Wyde, A. C. (2017). Introducing public administration. New York, NY: Routledge.

Shanor, C., & Hogue, L. (2003). National security and military law in a nutshell. St. Paul: Thomson West Pub. Company.

U.S. Department of Defense. (2019). United States Department of Defense. Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov

Whitlock, C., & Woodward, B. (2016). Pentagon buries evidence of $125 billion bureaucratic waste. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html