Order Code RS21322
October 1, 2002
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Homeland Security: Establishment and
Implementation of Northern Command
Christopher Bolkcom, Lloyd DeSerisy, & Lawrence Kapp
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
The Defense Department’s (DoD) establishment of U.S. Northern Command
(NORTHCOM) appears to be a significant organizational step toward fighting terrorism
at home and protecting U.S. interests abroad. Many issues remain, however, regarding
NORTHCOM’s implementation. Some issues pertain to NORTHCOM’S relationships
with other DoD agencies. Procedures for how NORTHCOM will interact with the
Department of Homeland Security and other civilian agencies are being developed.
Civil-military issues, and NORTHCOM’s liaison with Canada, Mexico, and other
neighboring countries, have yet to be completely addressed.
Introduction
On April 25, 2002 President Bush approved the latest Defense Department Unified
Command Plan, which among other things, established U.S. Northern Command
(NORTHCOM). The creation of NORTHCOM is part of the military’s largest unified
command reorganization since World War II, and it is a first-of-its-kind military
organization. NORTHCOM is one of the most tangible steps DoD has taken to reorganize
itself to better combat terrorism abroad and to protect U.S. citizens at home.
NORTHCOM is scheduled to begin operations on October 1, 2002, but is not scheduled
to reach its full capabilities until a year later. Thus, it appears likely that there will be
ongoing congressional oversight on many NORTHCOM implementation issues.
Although NORTHCOM is in its embryonic stage, some facts are clear. The new
commander of NORTHCOM (Air Force General Ralph “Ed” Eberhart) will be
responsible for defense of the United States, including land, aerospace and sea defenses.1
Also, as directed by the President or the Secretary of Defense, NORTHCOM will provide
1 Prior to NORTHCOM’s establishment, homeland defense efforts had been coordinated among
four different combatant commanders. Joint Forces Command, Pacific Command, Southern
Command, and the U.S. element of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)
currently all have separate responsibilities for aspects of the defense of the United States.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
military assistance to civil authorities, including immediate crisis and subsequent
consequence management operations.
NORTHCOM will be headquartered at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Springs,
CO, current home of NORAD and the U.S. Space Command (SPACECOM). Staff are
estimated at approximately 500 active duty, reserve military, and civilian personnel.
NORTHCOM will take control of three existing homeland defense organizations: Joint
Forces Headquarters Homeland Security, based at Norfolk, VA – the homeland security
component of the U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) that coordinates the land and
maritime defense of the continental United States and military assistance (for operations
such as disaster relief) to civil authorities; Joint Task Force (JTF) for Civil Support at Ft.
Monroe, VA, which provides military support to civil authorities responding to weapons
of mass destruction; and JTF Six at Ft. Bliss, TX, which supports law enforcement in
counter drug activities within the United States. The current plan is for NORTHCOM to
have few permanently assigned forces. Under this plan, JFCOM will provide forces to
NORTHCOM as needed.
The President’s FY2003 budget includes $81 million in operations and maintenance,
military construction, and procurement funds to establish NORTHCOM. Additionally,
the FY02 supplemental funding request includes $10 million to support the currently
operating JTF Civil Support, the Homeland Security Directorate (HLS) in JFCOM, and
the NORTHCOM transition team established to meet initial operational capability
requirements scheduled to be in place prior to October 1, 2003.2 NORTHCOM’s
estimated annual budget is roughly $70 million.3
Many issues for Congress will emerge as NORTHCOM begins operations. Generally
speaking, these questions can be divided into four overlapping areas: DoD issues, intra
governmental issues, civil - military issues, and international issues.
Issues for Congress
DoD Issues. DoD questions generally center on three overlapping areas:
organization, manning, and training/equipment. In a broad sense all of these topics fall
under a long-standing framework governed by joint doctrine and overseen by the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. NORTHCOM will
likely rely heavily on this framework.
NORTHCOM unifies military command and effort within a single operational
organization and may streamline DoD support to other agencies. How this arrangement
for homeland defense will evolve is uncertain. Initial planning indicates NORTHCOM
will establish a standard staff organization. Previously, SPACECOM and NORAD were
run by the same commanding officer, and shared staffs with all but their operations and
plans directorates. With NORTHCOM’s responsibility to coordinate planning and
operations for neighboring countries, will the operations and plans directorates of
NORTHCOM and NORAD also merge? If so, will Canadian military personnel fill
2 Background Paper on Northern Command. OSD Office of Legislative Liaison (undated).
3 Raquel Rutledge. “NorthCom Reinventing Defense.” Colorado Springs Gazette. August 15,
2002.

---

CRS-3
NORTHCOM staff billets or continue only in their present NORAD staff billets? Direct
day-to-day liaison with countries inside NORTHCOM's area of responsibility may
improve relations and future operations. What positions might other nations’ militaries
fill in the new headquarters establishment?
Manning of DoD’s unified commands is authorized by a DoD list of some 9,000
billets. Will the creation of NORTHCOM require other organizations to reduce their
staff? On June 26, 2002, DoD announced it would merge SPACECOM with the U.S.
Strategic Command (STRATCOM). This impending merger will likely provide some,
but not enough, billets for NORTHCOM. The Coast Guard and the National Guard can
provide personnel experienced in homeland defense and interagency support. General
Eberhart told the National Guard Association of the United States' 124th annual
conference, “We can't have a Northern Command, we can't provide for the homeland
defense and the homeland security of this great nation and this area of responsibility
without the National Guard."4 To what extent will these two organizations be involved
in NORTHCOM staff and under what budget allocation arrangements?
The joint officer training and joint duty requirements of active duty DoD military
personnel are mandated by public law, P.L.99-443 (Goldwater-Nichols Department of
Defense Reorganization Act of 1986). During peacetime, the National Guard does not fall
directly under this framework. What joint training/education will National Guard
personnel require to operate in the joint command environment? Will National Guard
personnel be federalized during their NORTHCOM staff tours or will they remain under
state control? If they operate under state control, how will that be organized? If not, how
will National Guard personnel be identified for federal service? To ensure a pool of
experienced staff the current joint tour is three years for DoD personnel. If Guard
personnel are federalized, will their tours be limited to two years, codified by Presidential
call-up rules or will they fall under different mandates?
NORTHCOM may initially be staffed with former SPACECOM personnel. These
personnel tend to have primarily space-based backgrounds and specialities. How will
these military specialities and services transition to meet the new command’s
requirements? What broad range of military specialities will comprise the final staff
contingent? Will information operations play a large role in NORTHCOM? Some unified
commands have combat-ready forces assigned to immediately respond to contingencies.
For example, the European Command (EUCOM) “owns” the tactical air forces based in
Europe, allowing it instant access to everything from F-16 and F-15 fighters to the KC-
135 tankers and C-130 transports to relocate them in theater. NORTHCOM will already
command three separate operating Joint Task Forces and the ongoing mission for
continental air and coastal defense. Will JFCOM retain all U.S.-based forces or will
NORTHCOM receive apportioned forces for rapid response? Will these tactical forces
include special operations personnel?
NORTHCOM has yet to determine the exact force structure, training, and equipment
required to satisfy its mission. NORTHCOM will likely begin by incorporating existing
JTFs and ongoing missions in support of Operation Noble Eagle, the US-based homeland
4 Master Sgt. Bob Haskell. “No Northern Command Without the National Guard, New Chief
Says.” Armed Forces Information Service News Articles. September 10, 2002.

---

CRS-4
defense and civil support operations associated with the war on terrorism. However,
NORTHCOM’s tasks will be broader and more complex. What will be the complete list
of NORTHCOM’s “mission essential” tasks? How will National Guard tasks be
incorporated? Undoubtedly, a closer relationship in the shared task of homeland defense
will drive closer cooperation in day-to-day training and exercises. How will JFCOM and
NORTHCOM incorporate these diverse forces in major joint exercises?
Interoperability is the watch word for both training and equipment for homeland
defense. This interoperability must extend beyond fielded forces to their interagency
counterparts, as civil support activities transition to defense or crisis management, then
back to civil support. Equipment from communications to medical and transportation
assistance has to be interoperable, and run by military personnel trained to work with
local, state, and federal authorities. Will DoD and NORTHCOM bear the burden for this
interoperability or will the cost be shared across agencies? Operations within America’s
borders dictate much more operational restraint with regard to use of deadly force. Will
non-lethal weaponry play a greater role? If so, will the training focus shift to non-lethal
weapons impact a unit’s war-time readiness? Does this issue drive DoD toward
apportioning forces for non-lethal operations?
Intra governmental Issues. The creation of NORTHCOM also raises important
questions about how the command will interact with other federal agencies, as well as
with state and local government entities. For example, in order to effectively help prevent
terrorist attacks from occurring – whether by land, sea, or air – NORTHCOM will need
to develop relationships with the Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration, the
Border Patrol, the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and
the Central Intelligence Agency. In order to effectively respond to terrorist threats or
attacks in the United States, NORTHCOM will need to have strong ties with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and
state and local emergency response agencies.5
Congress may be interested in the way in which these working relationships are
structured. In defining the precise nature of these relationships, there is an inherent tension
between competing values and interests. For example, there is a tension between the
desire to make decisions rapidly while also ensuring that the decisions are based on
accurate information and appropriate input from subject matter experts; between the
desire to ensure necessary resources are available on short notice, while also ensuring that
government efforts are not duplicative and wasteful; and between the desire to ensure a
robust response by multiple governmental agencies, while also ensuring that those
agencies don’t overstep their respective authorities. Issues which might arise out of these
tensions include: What role should the NORTHCOM commander have in the homeland
security decision making process? To what extent will existing plans and procedures for
5 The current U.S. government plan for responding to terrorist threats or incidents which occur
within the United States is the United States Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism
Concept of Operations Plan (CONPLAN), January, 2001. The CONPLAN designates DoD as
a supporting agency to the FBI during the crisis management phase of a terrorist threat, and as
a supporting agency to FEMA during the consequence management phase of a terrorist attack.
See CRS Report RL30938, Terrorism and the Military’s Role in Domestic Crisis Management:
Background and Issues for Congress, by Jeffrey Brake, for a discussion of this subject. If
Congress creates a new Department of Homeland Security, this relationship could change.

---

CRS-5
military assistance to civil authorities (such as FEMA, the FBI, and the proposed
Department of Homeland Security) need to change?
How well are civilian agencies allocating their resources to ensure coordinated
training and interoperability of equipment with each other and DoD? How much control
should these agencies have over the military assets provided for their support? How much
access should NORTHCOM have to information in the possession of other agencies? The
answers to these questions will likely change over time, with the mechanisms put in place
adjusted periodically in response to new experiences, threats, attitudes, and operational
concepts.
Civil Military Issues. The mission of NORTHCOM also raises questions about
the impact the command might have on civil-military relations, including legal, political,
and cultural boundaries on the role of the military in American society. For example, in
order to defend the U.S. from attack, NORTHCOM has a strong rationale for access to
information collected by various intelligence and law enforcement agencies. However,
at a certain point, such access could create the perception – or the reality – that the
military is spying on U.S. citizens. What type of access should NORTHCOM be given
to various types of sensitive data? What types of safeguards need to be established to
ensure that this data is used properly?
There are also concerns regarding the longstanding restrictions on the use of military
personnel for law enforcement purposes.6 Do these restrictions unduly limit the federal
government’s ability to prevent terrorist attacks? Should Congress modify these laws?
On the other hand, wouldn’t loosening the restrictions on military involvement in law
enforcement be an affront to deeply held American beliefs about the proper role of the
military? Couldn’t this undermine popular support for the military as an institution, and
thus inhibit the military’s ability to defend the United States in more traditional ways?
Indeed, is there a danger that even the currently permissible level of military support to
civilian agencies might affect civil-military relations in a negative way? For example, if
America were to suffer an ongoing stream of smaller scale terrorist attacks, would the
regular participation of military personnel in consequence management efforts give
Americans the sense that they were living in a militarized society? Might that perception
lower public support for the military? On the other hand, is there any precedent for a
more active role for the military in domestic affairs? If so, to what extent are those
experiences relevant to contemporary events?
International Issues. NORTHCOM is charged with defense of all approaches
– air, land, and sea – to the United States. Will NORTHCOM’s mission require new
relationships and increased coordination with U.S. neighbors? Through NORAD, DoD
has had a long history of cooperation with Canada in terms of air and space surveillance
and defense. Due to the former Cold War threat, much equipment and attention has been
focused on a northern approach to the United States. Are the existing military-to-military
relationships with Caribbean and Mexican authorities adequate to protect the United
States from attacks originating from the south? Will the transition of responsibility from
6 For a detailed examination of these restrictions, see CRS Report 95-964 The Posse Comitatus
Act & Related Matters: The Use of the Military to Execute Civilian Law, by Charles Doyle.

---

CRS-6
SOUTHCOM to NORTHCOM or JFCOM to NORTHCOM cause any problems? Do
these countries adequately monitor their national airspace, considering the new threat
environment? Can they effectively share information with NORTHCOM? Will new
training and exercises be required with Mexican and Caribbean armed forces? How
feasible, and what are the pros and cons of including these entities in NORAD?7
Defense Department leaders have said that NORTHCOM’s geographic responsibility
will include the contiguous waters of the Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean, and the
Caribbean Sea “out to a minimum of 500 miles” so it can defend in depth.8 This suggests
that NORTHCOM will be interested in developments occurring in the territorial waters
of both Canada, Mexico, and various Caribbean countries. How will NORTHCOM
maximize visibility into these areas, minimize tension with foreign governments, and
ensure unimpeded access? Adm. Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations, has said that
maritime security for the United States requires a centralized command responsible for
patrolling U.S and Canadian waters. “I’m convinced” he said, “we need a NORAD for
maritime forces.”9 The Canadian government, however, does not currently see the need
for such an arrangement.10 What are the implications of these divergent opinions?
NORTHCOM’s mission also brings it into contact with countries that are not
contiguous to the United States. NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic
(SACLANT) is tasked to “preserve the peace, security and territorial integrity of Alliance
member states,” in Atlantic waters.11 NORTHCOM will be responsibile for protecting
Atlantic waters between the east coast of the United States and 45oW longitude, and
EUCOM will be responsible for Atlantic waters east of this point. What coordination is
required between NORTHCOM, EUCOM and SACLANT? May tension arise from their
sometimes differing responsibilities? As NATO’s only strategic commander based in the
United States (Norfolk, VA), SACLANT today plays an important tole in maintaining a
strong politico-military link between Europe and North America. With NORTHCOM’s
creation, SACLANT will move to EUCOM. How will that relationship be affected?
Radiological, chemical, and biological attacks can transcend national boundaries.
The consequences of such attacks on Canadian or Mexican cities could be experienced
in U.S. border towns such as Buffalo, El Paso, San Diego, and Detroit. What should
NORTHCOM do to plan, train, conduct exercises, help monitor diseases, and effectively
respond to such incidents at the international level? Are mechanisms currently in place
to ensure seamless cooperation with U.S. neighbors to address such attacks?
7 The NORAD Command Agreement is renegotiated every five years. The next negotiation is
scheduled for 2005, which may be an opportunity for exploring adding new countries to the pact.
8 U.S. Department of Defense News Transcript. “Special Briefing on the Unified Command
Plan.” Federal News Service. April 17, 2002.
9 “NORAD At Sea.” Aerospace Daily August 19, 2002.(un-attributed)
10 Rick Mofina. “Canada Won’t Join NORAD-like Land-Sea Force.” Ottawa Citizen. August 15,
2002. p.1.
11 NATO Handbook. NATO Office of Information and Press. Brussels, Belgium.P.264-265.

---