April 8, 2019
“Space Force” and Related DOD Proposals: Issues for Congress
Over the past year, Congress saw a variety of overlapping
proposals advanced for the reorganization of U.S. military
activities in space. Major proposals include
the creation of a Space Force (SF), a new branch of the
Armed Forces under the Secretary of the Air Force;
the reestablishment of a U.S. Space Command as an
additional unified combatant command; and
the establishment of a Department of Defense Space
Development Agency.
While few observers dispute the notion that the Department
of Defense (DOD) should better organize and manage its
space capabilities, agreement ends there. Some believe all
three proposals should be adopted; others believe only
some, if any, should become permanent institutions within
DOD. Taken together, these overlapping proposals could
present considerable challenges to DOD’s functioning in
one of the most critically important operational domains.
Regardless, the concepts and details of these military space-
related proposals remain unclear—if not contradictory—at
this time, prompting fundamental questions about plans to
reorganize DOD’s space programs, capabilities, and
agencies.
What Is The Role of Congress?
Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution empowers
Congress “to raise and support Armies … provide and
maintain a Navy … to make Rules for the Government and
Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Accordingly, the
establishment of a new military service is generally viewed
as the prerogative of Congress rather than the executive
branch. Therefore, while the President has directed the
creation of a Space Force through Space Policy Directive-4,
such a force may not officially come into existence unless
and until Congress passes legislation for its establishment.
In exercising its oversight and budgetary authorities,
Congress will also have the opportunity to review whether
the establishment of a U.S. Space Command and/or a Space
Development Agency is an appropriate use of resources.
What Problems Need Solving?
Broadly speaking, two primary rationales are offered for the
current focus on military space activities: improving the
efficiency of extant space programs and better preparing
DOD to contend with current and emerging threats.
Problem One: Program and Cost Efficiencies
Congress has long expressed its concerns that U.S. military
programs in space have not kept pace with global
technological developments. For more than two decades,
the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and
others have found that fragmentation and overlap in
national security space acquisition management and
oversight have contributed to program delays and
cancellations, cost increases, and inefficient operations. For
example, in 2012, GAO identified 60 national security
space stakeholder organizations across the U.S.
government, of which 11 had oversight responsibilities, 8
had acquisition management responsibilities, and 6 were
responsible for setting requirements. This fragmented
leadership “contributed to poor coordination and lengthy
decision making … [these] challenges are magnified in
space programs because their technologies are frequently
obsolete by the time systems are deployed.”
Problem Two: Increased Military Threats
Congress has also expressed concern over the slow pace
with which DOD and the Air Force have addressed the
growing threat to U.S. national security in space from
adversaries, particularly Russia and China, and, to a lesser
extent, North Korea and Iran. This is because, in their view,
the space domain has evolved into a war-fighting domain
like air, land, and sea, and is a domain that is both
congested and contested.
Congested. Around 2,000 active satellites are in orbit today,
and that number is increasing. More than 100
governments—as well as commercial entities—from more
than 50 countries control these assets. Further, an increase
of space activities in the past 60 years has created an
estimated 23,000 pieces of uncontrolled debris that can
disable or destroy a satellite. In addition, the testing of
antisatellite weapons by China in 2007 and recently by
India in 2019 have added additional pieces of debris to an
already congested space environment.
Contested. According to DOD officials and documents,
U.S. military advantages in space are at risk. Adversaries
have studied U.S. warfighting concepts and focused their
attention on U.S. space systems’ vulnerabilities. China,
Russia, and other nations are pursuing capabilities to target
U.S. space systems using jammers, lasers, kinetic-kill, and
now cyberattack capabilities. Some observers contend that
international actors are aware of U.S. space superiority and
understand the critical reliance of the United States on
space systems to achieve national interests; accordingly,
some adversarial actors—Russia and China in particular—
have made investments to counter U.S. advantages in space.
Missing: An Effective Space Proponent?
DOD is a hierarchical organization, both from an
organizational and cultural standpoint. In practice, this
means decisions are generally made at senior levels and
implemented at lower levels with comparatively little
“bottom up” influence on those decisions, particularly those
that affect the overall defense enterprise. Further, senior
leaders often compete with each other for DOD resources—
the higher the rank of a given leader, the more likely it is
that he or she will be able to “win” those competitions on
behalf of their defense organization.
