Don't Tread on Us.

Published Date:© 02/01/2004
Byline: By William R. Wells II
Publication: ARMED FORCES JOURNAL

Don't tread on us
Should the Coast Guard be free of its Navy service shackles?

Since 1799 the U.S. Coast Guard and its predecessor services were organized under the Navy whenever the nation was involved in a conflict or national emergency. Realistically, however, World War II was the only instance of full integration, and even then, the law was not followed fully. The question is why should the Coast Guard be required to become a "service in the Navy" at all? Legal specialists of either service could have a field day debating this topic, but perhaps this is the time to consider the appropriateness of the situation and how it would play out in current
and future scenarios. Is this not an opportunity to repeal 14 USC 3?

14 USC PART I CHAPTER 1 Sec. 3. - Relationship to Navy Department

Upon the declaration of war or when the President directs, the Coast Guard shall operate as a service in the Navy, and shall so continue until the President, by Executive order, transfers the Coast Guard back to the Department of Homeland Security. While operating as a service in the Navy, the Coast Guard shall be subject to the orders of the Secretary of the Navy who may order changes in Coast Guard operations to render them uniform, to the extent he deems advisable, with Navy operations.

On March 2, 1799, Congress approved the act giving the president authority to order the Revenue Cutter Service (RCS) to cooperate with the Navy setting the tone for the next 200 years. The rationale for the cooperation was practical. The RCS was very small: just 10 cutters with small crews and no real centralized national organization or leadership. The first authority came five years earlier, however, permitting the president to use the cutters as dispatch vessels — or for any other naval purpose he wanted. This presidential authority to divert the cutters to other functions made the RCS the nation's de facto navy, as it had been since 1790 and would continue to be until 1798. The 1799 Act remained unchanged for 116 years when Congress added the caveat that the Coast Guard also went under the Navy on formal declaration of war.

President Wilson was the first to use both features of the law and Franklin Roosevelt the last. There have been no executive orders directing the Coast Guard to service in the Navy.

In all military operations since World War II, the Coast Guard operated as a member of joint operations — a separate armed force just as those of the Department of Defense — without leaving its parent department. This dual operational focus has historical precedent. In 1908 the attorney general noted that during the Civil War, the RCS was involved in "two classes of interest — those pertaining to the protection of the customs revenue and those pertaining to military and naval operations — being so closely interwoven as to be practically inseparable." There is no reason why the Coast Guard of the 21st century could not perform simultaneously the same two classes of interest — without being ordered to be a service in the Navy.

Paying for it

The primary reason the Coast Guard is placed under the Navy when directed by either of the legal requirements is fiscal. The Navy, when budgets are good, contributes to Coast Guard training and some equipment. The Coast Guard could ill afford to participate on its own. The Navy, however, never has paid the full costs of the Coast Guard as the law requires. The catch to all this, of course, is the complete and total transfer of the Coast Guard to the Navy. As mentioned, this has occurred just once, but even then, the Navy balked at paying. During the Vietnam War, where the Coast Guard was not a service in the Navy, the Coast Guard continued using appropriated funding to support its portion of the war.

The legend of 1799 lives on. More than 200 years later, the Coast Guard still must become part of the Navy in wartime or whenever the president directs. It is the only armed force so required. The U.S. Air Force grew out of the U.S. Army, but there is no law indicating the Air Force must become a service within the Army in time of war or when the president directs. In addition, there is no act requiring the U.S. Marine Corps to become a service in the Army, although it is a possibility. The basic argument for the Marine Corps is its amphibious qualities. During Vietnam, however, the Army's 9th Infantry Division participated in more amphibious operations than the Marine Corps, which in turn took on more army-like operations.

The Marine Corps, however, has always remained its own service. This has not been the case with the Coast Guard. Although holding a place as a "service" in the Navy, the Coast Guard for all intents becomes a Navy unit. In 1966, the Navy created commander, Naval Forces, Vietnam. Part of the responsibilities was to take charge of all Navy, not naval, forces in Vietnam. Somehow, the Navy folded Coast Guard units into its organization without consideration of the Coast Guard's individual command status. Nor was there any protest from, or concern shown, by the Coast Guard's leadership in Washington, a situation that remains today.

Lifesaver image

Coast Guard literature extols the service's "lifesaver image," placing its national-defense role dead last in the packet. It notes, incorrectly: "The Coast Guard maintains the highest possible state of defense readiness and interoperability, ready to serve as part of the Navy if the need arises." But what if the need does not arise and the Coast Guard does not serve as part of the Navy?

The reason for the 1799 law no longer exists: it has outlived its usefulness. There is no practical need for the Coast Guard to be a service in the Navy to verify its position as a naval force or to serve in wartime. Before and since the Civil War, the Coast Guard has shown it can fulfill both roles simultaneously as cited in a 1927 decision by Justice Oliver W. Holmes. "Both the Secretary of the Treasury and the President may direct any revenue cutter to cruise in any waters in order to perform any duty of the service."

A duty of the service is a naval operation that has been understood and verified by those in government.

The Coast Guard also has a long history of assisting other governmental departments without becoming part of that department. During the late 19th century, the revenue cutters enforced Department of Commerce-mandated fur-seal laws in Alaska without becoming part of Commerce. The argument here would be that this was civil law enforcement and not a naval operation. However, the Navy also was involved in similar operations — can it be said its ships were not engaged as naval units? In an editorial published Oct. 10 in The Day of New London, Conn., retired Coast Guard Capt. Bruce Stubbs made six excellent points on what Congress and the Coast Guard should do to ensure the Coast Guard's place as a naval service. He did not mention repealing 14 USC 3 or changing that part of the humanitarian culture that wants nothing to do with war fighting or naval service. Coast Guard Capt. Mark Case, a Coast Guard Academy department head, underlined this point when he spoke in an Associated Press story of why young people choose this particular service: "The Coast Guard is a humanitarian type of service, focused on saving lives and enforcing laws, trying to make [the] world a safer place. Those characteristics attract a number of different students."

Those joining the Coast Guard for humanitarian reasons may be able to reconcile their personal outlooks with the rationale that the Coast Guard, a humanitarian service, has been forced into a military role. It is the law and, therefore, they are not responsible. This occurred within the Coast Guard when American public opinion turned against the Vietnam War. The Coast Guard claimed it was only there to "support" the Navy and launched a public relations campaign to show its humanitarian side — becoming "The Lifesavers." By 1968, nearly all reports of its combat operations in Vietnam disappeared from official public relations reports and the Coast Guard was attempting to disengage itself from military operations in favor of a projected marine science role.

During the war in Iraq, the Coast Guard placed its humanitarian and environmental faces at the forefront. Official press releases described Coast Guard naval-escort operations in Iraq as assistance for humanitarian aid.

For more than 200 years, the Coast Guard has been equipped and trained to capture and destroy enemies of the United States, and is fully capable of fulfilling its naval charter without presidential order or a declaration of war. The Coast Guard should be freed from the restrictions, and crutch, of 14 USC 3 to create its own naval force based on its uniqueness and usefulness to the nation in war and peace.

In 2000, then-Coast Guard Commandant James M. Loy spoke of raising the national relevance of the Coast Guard, but how can this be achieved while the law continues to place the Coast Guard in a subservient role?

Repeal 14 USC 3 and let the Coast Guard and Navy become the partners, or "shipmates" as they call each other, in national defense and security. This is what the nation needs, expects and deserves.

William R. Wells II is an author and historian of the U.S. Coast Guard and U.S. Revenue Cutter Service.