W(h)ither Corps?
Authored by Dr. D. Robert Worley.
August 2001
32 Pages
Brief Synopsis
Army transformation has many dimensions with change in technology, operational methods, and organizations. So far, the focus of organizational transformation has been on the redesign of tactical units such as the interim brigade combat teams. But corps--the Army's operational level organizations--must also be transformed.
The author provides a history of the structure and function of Army corps and discusses ways they might be redesigned to play an effective role in the 21st century security environment. He concludes that the different Army corps have such diverse functions that a "one size fits all" approach is inappropriate. After considering a number of options, he provides a blueprint for an array of corps structures that would fulfill missions from peacekeeping to major wars.
INTRODUCTION
Army transformation should not be a “one size fits all” process. Each of the Army’s surviving corps has a unique origin. Relevance to present and future conflict environments requires multiple destinations. Ultimately, separate transformations are required to move from distinct origins to diverse destinations.
Today’s U.S. Army corps have their roots in Napoleon’s corps d’armée and the corps formed during the American Civil War. Corps and divisions vanished after the Civil War. Divisions were resurrected on the eve of U.S. entry to World War I, but corps returned later as large tactical headquarters during the preparation for World War II. The Cold War, with its large standing Army, mature coalitions, extensive network of modern infrastructure in what was expected to be the primary theater of war, and known enemy with known doctrine and known order of battle, made corps the U.S. Army’s principal warfighting command.
Today these conditions no longer hold. Given this, should corps retain their preeminent role? Should corps survive at all? The answer is unequivocally “yes.” But what role should they play and what relationship should they have with echelons above and below? There is no single answer that applies across the Army. Whither corps?
In the face of small budgets and high operating tempo, resistance to change is self-destructive. The Army must remain relevant, or it will continue to lose in the budget competition. But relevance to what? Some argue for relevance to the many expected small wars at the expense of the ability to fight “big” wars. Others argue for maintaining a “big war” capability for unexpected but high stakes conflicts, at the risk of appearing irrelevant to the frequent small wars. Still others argue that relevance is determined by the ability to fight America’s “big wars” 20 years hence. Regardless of where relevance for ground forces is found, most agree that relevance will be determined in the context of joint forces. In any case, organization will matter. Refining the shape and function of corps will be a vital part of the broader process of Army transformation.
Access Full Report [PDF]: W(h)ither Corps?
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
