Order Code RS22373
Updated October 25, 2006
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Navy Role in Global War on Terrorism
(GWOT) — Background
and Issues for Congress
Ronald O’Rourke
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Summary
The Navy is taking several actions to expand its capabilities for participating in the
Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The Navy’s role in the GWOT raises several
potential oversight issues for Congress, including the need for an increased Navy role,
and amount of Navy personnel and funding associated with GWOT-related activities.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Introduction and Issue for Congress
The Navy, which has participated for several years in what the Administration refers
to as the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), is taking actions to expand its capabilities
for GWOT-related activities.1 The issue for Congress is: How should the Navy’s role in
the GWOT be taken into account in assessing the Navy’s budget and Navy programs?
Background
Longstanding Navy GWOT-Related Activities. The Navy has carried out
certain GWOT-related activities for several years, including the following:
! on-the-ground medical and construction support for Marines in Iraq;
! surveillance by Navy ships and aircraft of suspected terrorists overseas;
! maritime intercept operations (MIO) aimed at identifying and
intercepting terrorists or weapons of mass destruction at sea, or
potentially threatening ships or aircraft that are in or approaching U.S.
1 For an overview of the role of U.S. military forces in the GWOT, see CRS Report RL32758,
U.S. Military Operations in the Global War on Terrorism: Afghanistan, Africa, the Philippines,
and Colombia, by Andrew Feickert.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
territorial waters — an activity that includes Navy participation in the
multilateral Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI);2
! operations by Navy special operations forces, known as SEALs, that are
directed against terrorists;3
! Tomahawk cruise missile attacks on suspected terrorist training camps
and facilities, such as those conducted in response to the 1998 terrorist
bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa;
! working with the Coast Guard to build maritime domain awareness
(MDA) — a real-time understanding of activities on the world’s oceans;4
! assisting the Coast Guard in port-security operations;5
! protection of forward-deployed Navy ships, an activity that was
intensified following the terrorist attack on the Navy Aegis destroyer
Cole (DDG-67) in October 2000 in the port of Aden, Yemen; and
! protection of domestic and overseas Navy bases and facilities.
The Navy states that
Winning the Global War on Terrorism is our number one priority. We continue
to support the GWOT through naval combat forces that are capable and relevant to the
missions assigned. The Department of the Navy has deployed various forces into the
Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR) to support in-theater
deployment of Marine Corps combat units (and attached Navy medical personnel and
construction battalion) and provide other sustainment support (such as port and cargo
handling and supply support, medical support, mail and transportation, [and]
explosive ordnance [support].... Because more than 95 percent of the world’s commerce
moves by sea, it is likely that terrorist networks utilize merchant shipping to move cargo
and passengers. The United States naval forces are well trained to carry out the mission
of deterring, delaying, and disrupting the movement of terrorists and terrorist-related
material at sea.6
The Navy states that since March 2006, more Navy sailors have been on the ground
than on ships in the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations (AOR),
2 For more on the PSI, see CRS Report RS21881, Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), by
Sharon Squassoni.
3 SEAL is an acronym that stands for Sea, Air, and Land. For further discussion of the SEALs
and of the role of special operations forces in the GWOT, see CRS Report RS21048, U.S. Special
Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert, and CRS
Report RS22017, Special Operations Forces (SOF) and CIA Paramilitary Operations: Issues for
Congress, by Richard A. Best, Jr. and Andrew Feickert.
4 For further discussion of MDA and the Coast Guard, see CRS Report RS21125, Homeland
Security: Coast Guard Operations — Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke,
and David W. Munis, “Vital Links,” Seapower, May 2005.
5 For more on the Coast Guard and port security, see CRS Report RS21125, op. cit., and CRS
Report RL31733, Port and Maritime Security: Background and Issues for Congress, by John F.
Frittelli.
6 U.S. Department of the Navy, Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2007 Budget.
Washington, 2006.

---

CRS-3
which includes Iraq. As of late-October 2006, the Navy states, there were about 12,000
sailors ashore in the CENTCOM AOR, including about 4,300 in Iraq.7
Recent Initiatives To Expand Navy Role in GWOT. Since July 2005, the
Navy has announced a number of initiatives intended to increase its capabilities for
participating in the GWOT, including the following:
! establishing a “1,000 ship Navy” — a multilateral maritime partnership
for ensuring global maritime security;
! establishing sea bases called Global Fleet Stations (GFSs) in various
regions around the world;
! establishing the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC);
! reestablishing the Navy’s riverine force;
! establishing a reserve civil affairs battalion, an MIO intelligence
exploitation pilot program, an intelligence data-mining capability at the
National Maritime Intelligence Center (NMIC), and a Navy Foreign Area
Officer (FAO) community consisting of officers with specialized
knowledge of foreign countries and regions;
! assuming command of a GWOT-related joint task force in the Horn of
Africa, the detainee operation at Guantanamo, Cuba, and Fort Suse, a
high-security prison in Iraq, and assuming the lead in defending the
Haditha Dam in Iraq;
! procuring Automatic Identification Systems (AISs) for surface ships;8
! developing a GWOT mission module for the Littoral Combat Ship
(LCS);9
! announcing a plan to take back five Cyclone (PC-1) class patrol craft that
the Navy had loaned to the Coast Guard to help support Coast Guard port
security operations;
! developing adaptive force packages and flexible deployment concepts to
include SEALs, U.S. Coast Guard, and coalition partners in support of
operations in blue, green, and brown water environments;
! developing concepts for green and brown water operations — including
certain types of visit, board, search, and seizure (VBSS) operations and
expanded MIO;
! developing expeditionary training team concepts, enhanced combat and
force protection capabilities, civil affairs, and Theater Security
Cooperation influence activities;
! making better use of existing language, area studies, and technology
curricula to enhance and expand FAO officer development, intelligence,
7 “All Hands On Land,” Defense Daily, Oct. 23, 2006.
8 The AIS is a transponder-like device that transmits a ship’s identification, position, course,
speed, and other data to other ships and relevant authorities. The International Convention for
the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) requires AIS to be installed on ships with a gross tonnage of
more than 300 tons.
9 For more on the LCS, see CRS Report RS21305, Navy Littoral Combat Ship (LCS):
Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke, and CRS Report RL32109, Navy
DDG-1000 (DD(X)), CG(X), and LCS Ship Acquisition Programs: Oversight Issues and Options
for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

---

CRS-4
information warfare, and cryptologic expertise, and to develop practical
cross-cultural skills needed to further relations with emerging partners;
! developing Global Maritime Intelligence Integration (GMII) as part of
Joint Force Maritime Component Command (JFMCC) and Maritime
Domain Awareness (MDA); and
! engaging with the U.S. Coast Guard to use the National Strategy for
Maritime Security to more rapidly develop capabilities for Homeland
Security, particularly in the area of MDA.
1,000-Ship Navy/Global Maritime Partnership. The 1,000-ship Navy
concept, also known as the Global Maritime Partnership, is a U.S. Navy initiative to
achieve an enhanced degree of cooperation between the U.S. Navy and foreign navies,
coast guards, and maritime police forces, for the purpose of ensuring global maritime
security against common threats. Since the U.S. Navy is planning to maintain in coming
years a fleet of about 313 ships, the concept implies a notional combined contribution
from other participating countries of something like 700 ships.10
Global Fleet Stations (GFSs). The Navy envisages establishing as many as five
GFSs around the world, each of which might be built around a single amphibious ship or
high-speed sealift ship. Under Navy plans, GFSs could host or support Marines, Navy
LCSs or patrol craft, Coast Guard small boats, and Army and Air Force personnel. GFSs
under Navy plans would be capable of conducting or supporting various operations,
including some that could be considered GWOT-related.11
NECC. The Navy Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC), headquartered at
Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, VA, was established informally in October 2005
and formally on January 13, 2006. NECC will
consolidate the current missions and functions of the 1st Naval Construction Division,
Naval Expeditionary Logistics Support Force and Maritime Force Protection
Command. NECC will also serve as functional commander in control of manning,
training, equipping and organizing forces that will execute ATFP [anti-terrorism force
protection], shore-based logistical support and construction missions across the joint
operational spectrum.... Between 40,000 and 50,000 Sailors will join the command
in phases over the next two years to ensure current operations are not disrupted. The
command will oversee units ranging from bomb-disposal crews, expeditionary
logistics specialists, the naval coastal warfare groups and the master-at-arms forces.
The NECC will also provide the 5,000 to 7,000 Sailors supporting the Army and
Marine Corps in the Middle East with proper training for these non-traditional jobs.12
10 For more on the 1,000-ship Navy/Global Maritime Partnership, see Geoff Fein, “‘Global
Maritime Partnership’ Gaining Steam At Home And With International Navies,” Defense Daily,
October 25, 2006 and Christopher P. Cavas, “Will ‘Thousand-Ship Navy’ Become GMPI?”
DefenseNews.com, Sept. 25, 2006.
11 For more on GFSs, see CRS Report RL32513, Corps Amphibious and Maritime Prepositioning
Ship Programs: Background and Oversight Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.
12 Katrina Scampini, “Navy Expeditionary Combat Command Stands Up,” Navy News Service,
Jan. 14, 2006.

---

CRS-5
Riverine Force. The riverine force, to be overseen by NECC, is intended to
supplement the riverine capabilities of the SEALs and relieve Marines who have been
conducting maritime security operations in ports and waterways in Iraq. The force is to
consist of three squadrons of 12 boats each, and include a total of about 900 sailors. The
Navy established Riverine Group 1 at the Naval Amphibious Base, Little Creek, VA, on
May 25, 2006. The first squadron is to be established in FY2006, and could be deployed
to Iraq in March 2007. The second and third squadrons are to be established in FY2007,
and could be deployed to Iraq in November 2007 and July 2008. The first squadron will
initially use 10 boats now being used by the Marines in Iraq. The Navy is proposing to
implement the riverine force as a non-acquisition program with no research and
development, no milestones, and no Joint Capability and Development System (JCIDS)
documentation. The Navy’s request for $69.1 million in FY2006 supplemental
procurement funding for the riverine force was almost entirely denied by Congress, and
the Navy is now requesting to reprogram $54.3 million in existing FY2006 funding for
the riverine force (see Legislative Activity below).
Potential Oversight Issues For Congress
Potential oversight issues for Congress relating to the Navy’s role in the GWOT
include the following:
! Is an increased Navy role in the GWOT needed? To what degree can or
should increased Navy GWOT-related activities be used to reduce the
burden on other services for conducting GWOT-related activities? Are
the Navy’s actions partly motivated by concerns about its perceived
relevance to current threats, or by a desire to secure a portion of GWOT-
related funding?
! How many Navy personnel globally are involved in GWOT-related
activities, and where are they located? How much funding is the Navy
expending each year on GWOT-related activities? How much will the
personnel and funding figures grow as the Navy implements its initiatives
to expand its capabilities for participating in the GWOT?
! Is the Navy striking an appropriate balance between GWOT-related
activities and other Navy concerns, such as preparing for a potential
future challenge from improved Chinese maritime military forces?13
! Aside from the establishment of the riverine force and a reserve civil
affairs battalion, what implications might an expanded Navy role in the
GWOT have for Navy force-structure requirements (i.e., the required size
and composition of the Navy)?
! Is the Navy adequately coordinating its GWOT-related activities and
initiatives with other organizations, such as the Special Operations
Command (SOCOM) and the Coast Guard?
! Are the Navy’s recent GWOT-related organizational changes, such as the
establishment of NECC, appropriate? Does NECC include the right
collection of Navy organizations? What other Navy organizational
changes might be needed?
13 See CRS Report RL33153, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy
Capabilities — Background and Issues for Congress, by Ronald O’Rourke.

---

CRS-6
Legislative Activity
FY2006 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations (H.R. 4939/P.L. 109-
234). The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 109-388 of March
13, 2006) on H.R. 4939, stated:
The Committee recommendation defers the $69,901,000 [sic: $69,091,000]
requested in Navy procurement accounts for establishment of a new riverine
capability. This program is under the administrative control of the Naval
Expeditionary Combat Command (NECC). Planning efforts for the program were
only initiated last summer, and the NECC was only established in January 2006. The
Committee understands that funds for the first riverine squadron will be the subject
of a fiscal year 2006 above threshold reprogramming.... Funds requested in this
supplemental would finance the second and third squadrons. The Committee intends
to review this new capability carefully over the coming months. While endorsed by
the recent Quadrennial Defense Review, the concept of operations is still under
development, and equipment requirements, including force protection equipment,
have not been specified or validated. The Committee defers these funds without
prejudice, and will work with the Navy and the Congressional authorization
committees in the coming months to validate the mission and funding requirements
for the program.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 109-230 of April 5,
2006) on H.R. 4939, recommended reducing the Navy’s request for FY2006 supplemental
procurement funding for the riverine force by at least $27.825 million. The conference
report (H.Rept. 109-494 of June 8, 2006, page 88) on H.R. 4939 (P.L. 109-234 of June
15, 2006) reduced the Navy’s request for FY2006 supplemental funding for NECC,
including the riverine force by 99.8%, to $140,000.
DOD Request To Reprogram FY2006 Funds. On June 30, 2006, about two
weeks after the enactment of P.L. 109-234 (see above), the Department of Defense (DOD)
submitted to Congress a request to reprogram FY2006 funds that includes, among other
things, a request to reprogram $54.3 million to the proposed riverine force, and $150.0
million to Navy Construction Battalions (i.e., CBs or Seabees) operating in Iraq.
FY2007 Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364). Section
361(e) of H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 requires the Navy to submit a detailed report on its
planned riverine squadrons, and limits the obligation of Navy operation and maintenance
(O&M) funds until the report is submitted. As discussed on pages 696-697 of the
conference report on H.R. 5122 (H.Rept. 109-702 of September 29, 2006), the earlier
House-passed version of H.R. 5122 contained a provision (Section 361) that would
prohibit expenditures for the NECC until the Navy ensured 100% funding for ship
steaming days per quarter and for depot maintenance work. The earlier House-passed
version of H.R. 5122 also contained a provision (Section 1015) that would require the
Secretary of the Navy to enter into an agreement with the Commandant of the Coast
Guard for the transfer of operational control of not less than five PC-1 class patrol boats
for a period extending at least through September 30, 2012. The provision was not
included in the conference version of the bill; the conference instead acknowledged the
value of the PC-1s to both the Navy and Coast Guard and directed the Navy, in
consultation with the Coast Guard, to submit a detailed report on Navy and Coast Guard
patrol boat requirements and plans (see pages 821-822).
crsphpgw

---