Abstract
This chapter seeks to inform the reader about the nature of the relationship between the US Navy (USN) and the US Coast Guard (USCG), and the ways in which they work together to protect the maritime security interests of the United States. It will describe the different mindsets of the USN and USCG, examine how these two agencies work together in a cooperative manner through a synergistic use of legal-policy authorities and resource capacities, and explain the command structures and mechanisms that they utilize for coordinated decision-making and unity of effort. Ultimately, this chapter concludes that the USN and USCG have developed a number of lawful and practical ways to achieve US national security objectives in the maritime context.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a general discussion of the British army’s mistreatment of American colonists, see John M. Blum et al., The National Experience: A History of the United States to 1877 (San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989), 93–94.
- 2.
Declaration of Independence (1776), https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript (citing, inter alia, abuses of the colonies to include the King “kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures”; “affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power”; “quartering large bodies of armed troops among us”).
- 3.
US Const. amend. III, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-the-u-s-bill-of-rights.
- 4.
John P. Deeben, “The War of 1812: Stoking the Fires,” Prologue 22, no. 2 (Summer 2012), https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2012/summer/1812-impressment.html.
- 5.
See, e.g., Mark L. Bradley, The Army and Reconstruction 1865–1877 (Washington, DC: US Army Center of Military History, 2015), 71, https://history.army.mil/html/books/075/75-18/cmhPub_75-18.pdf.
- 6.
An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-nine, and for other purposes, Pub. L. No. 45-263, 20 Stat. 145 (June 18, 1878), § 15, https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/45th-congress/session-2/c45s2ch263.pd.
- 7.
18 U.S.C. § 1385.
- 8.
10 U.S.C. § 375.
- 9.
See US Department of Defense Instruction 3025.21, Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies (February 27, 2013), https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/302521p.pdf.
- 10.
14 U.S.C. § 1 (emphasis added); see also 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4). (“The term ‘armed forces’ means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.”)
- 11.
14 U.S.C. § 2 (emphasis added).
- 12.
See U.S. Department of Defense Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States (March 25, 2013), II-7, http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp1_ch1.pdf?ver=2017-12-23-160207-587. (“[The U.S. Coast Guard] is the only military Service not constrained by the Posse Comitatus Act or its extension by [Department of Defense] directive.”)
- 13.
14 U.S.C. §§ 141–154.
- 14.
Commandant of the US Marine Corps, Chief of Naval Operations, Commandant of the US Coast Guard, A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower (March 2015), 2, http://www.navy.mil/local/maritime/150227-CS21R-Final.pdf.
- 15.
See Cambridge Dictionary, s.v. “synergy,” accessed February 1, 2018, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/synergy (defining synergy as “the combined power of a group of things when they are working together that is greater than the total power achieved by each working separately”).
- 16.
The World Factbook, US Central Intelligence Agency, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2060.html.
- 17.
Clare Ribando Seelke et al., “Latin America and the Caribbean: Illicit Drug Trafficking and U.S. Counterdrug Programs,” Congressional Research Service (May 12, 2011), 1, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41215.pdf.
- 18.
US Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Assessment (February 2010), 21, https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs38/38661/38661p.pdf.
- 19.
President Ronald W. Reagan, National Security Decision Directive 221, Narcotics and National Security (April 8, 1986), 1, https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-221.pdf.
- 20.
14 U.S.C. § 2(1).
- 21.
14 U.S.C. § 2(2).
- 22.
See, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 841(a).
- 23.
See US Department of State, Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (2016), https://www.state.gov/j/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2016/vol1/253221.htm.
- 24.
10 U.S.C. § 124.
- 25.
10 U.S.C. § 272 and § 274.
- 26.
10 U.S.C. § 279(a).
- 27.
10 U.S.C. § 279(b).
- 28.
Evan Munsing and Christopher J. Lamb, Joint Interagency Task Force-South: The Best Known, Least Understood Interagency Success (Washington, DC: National Defense University, 2011), 40, http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratperspective/inss/Strategic-Perspectives-5.pdf.
- 29.
“Exclusive Economic Zone,” Sea Around Us, last accessed February 1, 2018, http://www.seaaroundus.org/data/#/eez.
- 30.
See, e.g., Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing, preamble; see also ASEAN Guidelines for Preventing Fish and Fishery Products from IUU Fishing Activities Into the Supply Chain (2015), para. 5.
- 31.
14 U.S.C. § 149(b).
- 32.
An Act to provide for the conservation and management of the fisheries, and for other purposes, Pub. L. No. 94-265, 90 Stat. 331 (April 13, 1976), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg331.pdf.
- 33.
As a matter of international law, the US government has negotiated and concluded a number of bilateral “shiprider agreements” to conduct cooperative maritime law enforcement. “U.S. Coast Guard Fisheries Enforcement Shiprider Operations,” US Agency for International Development, last accessed February 1, 2018, https://rmportal.net/biodiversityconservation-gateway/legality-sustainability/fisheries-development/project-search/add-a-project-activity/u.s.-coast-guard-fisheries-enforcement-shiprider-operations.
- 34.
James Hurdell, “The Value of Ship Rider Agreements in the Pacific,” cogitASIA (December 10, 2014), last accessed February 1, 2018, https://www.cogitasia.com/the-value-of-ship-rider-agreements-in-the-pacific/.
- 35.
“Welcome to the Fourteenth Coast Guard District Honolulu, Hawaii,” US Coast Guard District Fourteen, last accessed February 1, 2018, http://www.pacificarea.uscg.mil/Our-Organization/District-14/.
- 36.
“U.S. Pacific Fleet , Ship Count,” Commander, Naval Surface Force, last accessed February 1, 2018, http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/Pages/USNavyPacificFleetShipsbyClass.aspx#.WnX5A_mnGUk.
- 37.
10 U.S.C. § 111(b).
- 38.
14 U.S.C. § 3(a).
- 39.
14 U.S.C. § 3(b).
- 40.
“The U.S. Coast Guard & U.S. Lighthouse Service in World War I,” US Coast Guard Historian’s Office, last accessed February 1, 2018, http://www.history.uscg.mil/Commemorations/World-War-I/.
- 41.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Executive Order 8929, 6 Fed. Reg. 5581 (November 1, 1941), http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=60917.
- 42.
Connie Terrell, “The Long Blue Line: Coast Guard Operations During the Persian Gulf War,” Coast Guard Compass: Official Blog of the U.S. Coast Guard (July 14, 2016), last accessed February 1, 2018, http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/2016/07/the-long-blue-line-coast-guard-operations-during-the-persian-gulf-war/.
- 43.
US Department of Defense, Conduct of the Persian Gulf War , Final Report to Congress (April 1992), 61–81, https://ia801407.us.archive.org/3/items/ConductofthePersianGulfWarFinalReporttoCongress/Conduct%20of%20the%20Persian%20Gulf%20War%20Final%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf (describing the maritime interception operations to enforce the U.N. Security Council resolution sanctions against Iraq).
- 44.
See Homeland Security Act, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (November 25, 2002) §§ 888 and 1704, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-116/pdf/STATUTE-116-Pg2135.pdf.
- 45.
US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-27, Homeland Defense (July 29, 2013), http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_27.pdf. (“The protection of United States sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical infrastructure against external threats and aggression or other threats as directed by the President.”)
- 46.
US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-27, Homeland Defense (July 29, 2013), http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_27.pdf. (“A concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States; reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, major disasters, and other emergencies; and minimize the damage and recover from attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies that occur.”)
- 47.
Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security for Department of Defense Support to the US Coast Guard for Maritime Homeland Security, cited in US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-27, Homeland Defense (July 29, 2013), D-11, http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_27.pdf.
- 48.
Memorandum of Agreement Between Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security for the Inclusion of the US Coast Guard in support of Maritime Homeland Defense, cited in US Department of Defense Joint Publication 3-27, Homeland Defense (July 29, 2013), D-11, http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_27.pdf.
- 49.
Even Munsing and Christopher J. Lamb, Joint Interagency Task Force-South: The Best Known, Least Understood Interagency Success, 18–19.
- 50.
US Department of Defense, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (August 2017), 226, http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf. (“The authority over forces that is limited to the detailed direction and control of movements or maneuvers within the operational area necessary to accomplish missions or tasks assigned.”)
- 51.
US Department of Defense, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (August 2017), 173, http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf. (“The authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission.”)
- 52.
Evan Munsing and Christopher J. Lamb, Joint Interagency Task Force-South: The Best Known, Least Understood Interagency Success, 37.
- 53.
Ibid., 39.
- 54.
Ibid.
- 55.
Ibid.
- 56.
President George W. Bush, National Security Presidential Directive 41, Maritime Security Policy (December 21, 2004), https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd41.pdf.
- 57.
“Global MOTR Coordination Center,” US Department of Homeland Security, last accessed February 1, 2018, https://www.dhs.gov/global-motr-coordination-center-gmcc.
- 58.
Ibid.
- 59.
US Department of Defense, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (August 2017), 242, http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf. (“Coordination and cooperation toward common objectives, even if the participants are not necessarily part of the same command or organization, which is the product of successful unified action.”)
- 60.
US Department of Defense, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (August 2017), 242, http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/dictionary.pdf. (“The operation of all forces under a single responsible commander who has the requisite authority to direct and employ those forces in pursuit of a common purpose.”)
- 61.
Brian Wilson, “The Complex Nature of Today’s Maritime Security Issues: Why Whole-of-Government Frameworks Matter,” in Handbook on Naval Strategy and Security, ed. Joachim Krause and Sebastian Burns (Oxon: Routledge, 2016), 157. (“As a horizontal coordinating mechanism, those involved in MOTR have no authority to direct or compel another agency to take (or not take) action, regardless of who is designated lead. The Department of Justice could not direct the Navy to use a specific ship to rescue a pirated vessel, and conversely, the Navy couldn’t direct the Department of Justice to prosecute.”) Of note, Mr. Wilson is the Deputy Director of the Global MOTR Coordination Center.
- 62.
14 U.S.C. § 2.
- 63.
See, e.g., White House, National Strategy for Maritime Security (September 01, 2015), 6, https://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/255321.htm.
- 64.
President George W. Bush, Executive Order 13,276, 67 Fed. Reg. 69985 (November 15, 2002), § 1.
- 65.
Ibid.
- 66.
Brian Wilson, “The Complex Nature of Today’s Maritime Security Issues: Why Whole-of-Government Frameworks Matter,” 157.
- 67.
If the government agencies have a policy difference over the desired national outcome or appropriate course of action for a particular maritime threat or situation, then the MOTR discussions would terminate and the issue would be elevated to policy decision-makers within the appropriate interagency policy process established by the White House. Ibid., 157.
- 68.
Evan Munsing and Christopher J. Lamb, Joint Interagency Task Force-South: The Best Known, Least Understood Interagency Success, 12.
- 69.
Ibid., 13.
- 70.
Ibid., 15.
- 71.
Ibid., 18–19.
- 72.
Ibid., 19.
- 73.
US Department of Defense, Joint Publication 3-07.4, Joint Counterdrug Operations (June 13, 2007), Appendix G, https://fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3-07-4.pdf. On August 14, 2013, this version of the joint publication has been superseded by a publication with the same title, but that version is not publicly available. See U.S. Department of Defense, Joint Electronic Library, http://www.jcs.mil/Doctrine/Joint-Doctrine-Pubs/3-0-Operations-Series/.
- 74.
16 U.S.C. § 1861(a).
- 75.
See Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act, 16 U.S.C. § 6905(a)(2)(A).
- 76.
See South Pacific Tuna Act, 16 U.S.C. § 973 h(a).
- 77.
Memorandum of Understanding Among the United States Coast Guard, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Department of Defense Concerning the Use of Department of Defense Resources in Support of Fisheries Law Enforcement Efforts in the United States Pacific Command and Coast Guard District Fourteen Areas of Operational Responsibility (April 30, 2012).
- 78.
See, e.g., National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 9-11 Commission Report (July 22, 2004), 403, https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf (discussing the “stovepipe” phenomenon among intelligence and operational agencies with the executive branch of the US government that created a vulnerability for the September 11th attacks).
- 79.
See, e.g., Linda E. Brooks Rix, “Low and Slow: The Process of Reforming Government,” Huffington Post, November 23, 2011, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-e-brooks-rix/low-and-slow-the-process-_b_974571.html (describing a “rice bowl” issue as one in which a government agency’s parochial interests take greater priority than the overall good of the agency or the government).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Odom, J.G. (2019). The United States. In: Bowers, I., Koh, S. (eds) Grey and White Hulls. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9242-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9242-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-9241-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-9242-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)