‘If you don’t like the law…’: Crow grills Army Secy over push to ELIMINATE Civilian Protection Act

Key Concepts

• CPCOE (Civilian Protection Center of Excellence): A congressionally mandated body designed to develop and implement best practices for minimizing civilian harm in military operations.
• Title 10 Authority: The legal framework defining the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. Armed Forces, specifically regarding the organization, training, and equipping of forces.
• OSW (Office of the Secretary of War): The civilian leadership body responsible for high-level policy and force structure decisions.
• COCOM (Combatant Command): The unified command structure (e.g., EUCOM) responsible for executing military operations in specific geographic regions.
• Rotational Force Structure: The practice of deploying units (such as armor brigades) on a temporary basis to maintain a persistent presence in a theater of operations.

---

1. The Civilian Protection Center of Excellence (CPCOE) Controversy

A significant portion of the hearing focused on a Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) report from February 2025. The report indicated that the Acting Under Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army proposed eliminating or significantly reducing the CPCOE.

• Legal Compliance: Legislators argued that the CPCOE was established by bipartisan law in 2023. They asserted that the DOD’s attempts to dismantle or underfund the center violate federal law.
• Operational Impact: The DOD IG report found that the loss of personnel and leadership at the CPCOE has hindered the military's ability to comply with civilian harm policies.
• DOD Response: Secretary Drisko claimed the intent was to move the center from the Army to the DOD rather than eliminate it. He attributed the appearance of "elimination" to an accounting error where positions were not accurately coded during a $2 billion cost-saving exercise. Legislators rejected this explanation, noting that the IG report explicitly identified a lack of tools and personnel necessary to execute the center's statutory mission.

2. Force Structure Reductions in Eastern Europe

The committee scrutinized the decision to remove rotational armor brigades from Poland and Romania, questioning the strategic rationale and the lack of coordination with allies.

• Strategic Concerns: Members of the committee, including General Bacon, characterized the withdrawal of armor brigades as "reprehensible" and an "embarrassment," particularly given the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine.
• Lack of Coordination: It was revealed that key allies, specifically Poland, were not notified of the withdrawal and were "blindsided" by the decision.
• Risk Assessment: While the Army leadership maintained that the decision was coordinated with EUCOM, committee members alleged that the decision was made by the Secretary of Defense despite objections from the combatant commander regarding the high level of risk involved.
• Congressional Oversight: Legislators noted that they had previously implemented restrictions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to prevent such unilateral reductions, yet the DOD proceeded with the withdrawals regardless.

3. Baltic Security and Munitions

The discussion touched upon the defensive capabilities of Baltic nations (Latvia and Estonia) regarding their HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) platforms.

• Capability Gap: While these nations have acquired the HIMARS launchers, they currently lack the necessary warheads and munitions.
• Industrial Base Constraints: Army leadership acknowledged the gap and cited long-term plans to increase production within the industrial base to supply these munitions, though they provided no immediate timeline for resolution.

---

Notable Quotes

• On Legal Obligation: "As long as it is law, it needs to be carried out. If you don't like the law, we can talk about that... but it has to be changed here." — Congressional Representative
• On Diplomatic Trust: "They question, can they trust America? And that's a terrible, terrible thing to happen when you lose trust with your closest friends." — General Bacon
• On Civilian Harm: "Civilian casualties... create all sorts of negative externalities for a mission that are just bad for the mission." — Secretary Drisko

---

Synthesis and Conclusion

The hearing highlighted a growing friction between the legislative branch and the Department of Defense regarding two primary issues: the erosion of congressionally mandated oversight bodies (CPCOE) and the unilateral alteration of force posture in Europe.

The DOD’s defense—that these actions were either administrative errors or standard force structure reviews—was met with skepticism by committee members. The overarching takeaway is that the committee views the current DOD leadership's actions as a disregard for both statutory law and the strategic necessity of maintaining strong, transparent alliances in Eastern Europe. The committee signaled an intent to hold the Secretary of Defense accountable for these decisions, emphasizing that administrative convenience does not supersede legal requirements or international security commitments.