Letters

LETTERS

'Joint' Means Trade-Offs

As the Navy point of contact for the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), I cannot let Tom Davis' indictment of that body go unanswered (Defense Beat, February).

Davis speaks of a definitional problem with the usage of the term "joint." At the muddy-boot level, everybody in the United States military knows instinctively what the word "joint" means. The problems begin at a much higher level, with organizations that believe that an issue isn't "joint" unless it begins with them.

Despite the fact that we have only one command named "joint forces command," every unified commander in the United States military owns and fights joint forces. The services build the components of those forces, which are fused at the joint task force level. It is the duty of the JROC to make sure that the joint task force commander has the tools that allow this fusion to go as smoothly as possible.

We do everything we can to make sure we understand and are adjusting to changing commander-in-chief (CINC) needs. Twice a year the JROC sends a team of general and flag officers to visit CINC staffs to hear their concerns and give them feedback from previous visits.

But the JROC has a problem that the CINCs do not have-it has to live within its assigned fiscal constraints. When a CINC wants the JROC to solve a particular problem, the first question that usually comes to mind is, "All right, what capability do you want us to kill to pay for this solution? Do you want us to scrap this airplane? Or cancel that ship? Or slow advances in Army technology programs? Or cut your spare parts and maintenance accounts?" The answer almost invariably comes back, "No, we need all of that stuff." But you can't have it both ways.

This is absolutely not an indictment of the CINCs. They, by law, are the advocates of the here and now. It is their job to fight for as much jointness, combat power and readiness as they can get. After all, they are the ones who actually have to go to war with what is available, if it ever comes to that. But the JROC has to look beyond current capability and plan for the future. That sometimes requires making trade-offs, including some joint integration trade-offs.

Some argue that joint integration systems should be protected at all costs-that every joint capability is more important than any component capability. But this is clearly not the case. It is the service components that actually do the fighting.

I am particularly disheartened that, according to Davis, somebody has convinced Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., that the JROC is, in his words, "not doing the job." I am convinced, after having worked this issue from every side imaginable-as a member of the operating forces, the Joint Staff, and a service staff-that the JROC is doing a very difficult job as well as it can be done.

Cmdr. Bill Toti
Navy JROC point of contact
Washington

Messenger System Works

We would like to correct a misconception regarding the Patent and Trademark Office's decision to replace our Messenger search system ("Patent Progress," February). Your report implied the decision was related to Messenger's Y2K compliance.

Messenger was Y2K compliant as of April 1999. The STN International service that runs on Messenger software is used daily by thousands of scientists worldwide. CAS did offer PTO management the Y2K compliant version when it became available.

Suzan A. Brown
Marketing director
Chemical Abstracts Service

Corrections

The March article "Great Expectations" misidentified one of the partners in the American Customer Satisfaction Index. The partners are the University of Michigan Business School, Arthur Andersen and the American Society for Quality.

Also in March, the letter "Bag the Career Advice" was not submitted by Karen Burgan.