Talk:United States Indo-Pacific Command

The article starts of stating that only the President, Commander In Chief, and his joint command councils have authority over the Pacific Fleet. That is technically in error, because the Secretary Of Defense, by Law, is second in command of the military. User:MPA — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs) 14:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Be bold. Give us a cite for the law and make the change. Jinian 16:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Since the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty was terminated in 1977, it is probably incorrect to state that SEATO provides a rationale for PACCOM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.164.34 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated, but I used to hear this term pronounced as suggested by its spelling in the above comment (short 'a' in the first syllable, rhyming with 'back'). But the acronym is spelled in the article with a single 'C' (PACOM), and I've recently heard it pronounced correspondingly (long 'a' in first syllable, as in the word 'pay'). And that seems to be the official spelling, although typing paccom into google sends you directly to pacom.

My question: what is the "correct" pronunciation, short 'a' or long? I suppose "correct" means how the current CDRUSPACOM pronounces it :-). Mcswell (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Standard pronunciation is the long 'a' (ADM Harris also uses it). Interestingly, the service components (USARPAC, PACFLT, and PACAF) use the short 'a' for their own names (Air Force is less consistent about it than others, however. USPACOMPAO (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Other commanders in other articles are neatly boxed. Does anyone know the editing code to do so? Colonel Marksman 17:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The image needs to be updated to deal with the transfer of Madagascar (and other relatively close islands) from PACOM to AFRICOM.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The article starts off with CINCPAC, then starts using it interchangably with PACOM. I came to find when the change occured in actuality to no avail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.41 (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The header states that the renaming of PACOM to INDOPACOM was in recognition of the US's alliance with India while the body of the article says it relates to the Indian and Pacific Oceans being withing the Command's scope. The latter is correct and the former should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:9301:9CAD:54D2:DA1:93A3:3CEF (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Garuda28 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

SOCKOR is a Subunified Command under SOCOM with Operational Command (OPCON) delegated down to the USFK Commander. Should it be placed on the table as its own entry like it currently is, or should it be incorporated into the "Subordinate Commands" of USFK? Tsubasa-Minoru (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm struggling to see how INDOPACOM extends up to the arctic, as stated in the lead. Perhaps when it included Alaska in its AOR, but that is now part of USNORTHCOM. INDOPACOM clearly stretches down to Antartica, but every map I look at has USNORTHCOM and USEUCOM stretching north to the arctic. I am not removing this yet, since I am conscious of WP:NOR and I have yet to find a reliable source that actually lists the coordinates (another issue with this article is lack of citations for the coordinates listed in various places throughout- feels like more WP:OR). Would propose removing mention of the arctic and the actual coordinates throughout in the absence of a RS. Schwinnspeed (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

The name of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command is written into law and cannot be changed without congressional action. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth acknowleged this, explicitly, in a memo that was obtained by the Associated Press. “Statutory references to United States Indo-Pacific Command shall remain controlling until changed subsequently in law,” he wrote, per AP, which adds that "U.S. Pacific Command" is merely a “secondary title” that cannot be used for legal documents.

The situation is a repeat of Hegseth's decision to start calling the Department of Defense the "Department of War" (although in that case, his PR folks publicly acknowleged that the "secondary name" was not a legal name).

How Wikipedia should handle the DoD/DoW situation was exhaustively discussed at Talk:United States Department of Defense. The consensus was to not move the page. We can certainly recapitulate the debate, but it seems best to simply acknowledge that the discussion here was concluded without full understanding of the situation. (Editors incorrectly asserted that the command's name was "officially changed" and that the page's move was a "simple renaming" occasioning a "technical request". The lone source cited is an INDOPACOM press release that inaccurately describes the situation.)

Given all this, we should revert the page move and correct the text of the article. PRRfan (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 161, the President, through the Secretary of Defense, has the authority to alter combatant commands. How that authority coexists with sections of the 2018 NDAA is an open question for the courts to settle, if anyone even has standing to initiate such a suit. However, Wikipedians armchair lawyer-ing about the law doesn't guide decisions. Our P&Gs do. The existence of WP:OTHERSTUFF should and does not control the naming of this article.

The US Pacific Command being renamed to US Indo-Pacific Command was announced on May 30, 2018, by then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. Notably, this name change was made prior to the passage of the 2018 NDAA cited above. Reliable sources at the time make clear this was a Pentagon decision, making no mention of a legal requirement to do so (1; 2; 3; 4). The Pentagon's announcement at the time mirrors that language.

The (albeit limited) reporting since the name change has invoked the Pacific Command/PACOM name, such as here.

WP:TITLE instructs titles be used to advance common names, precision, consistency, naturalness, and recognizability. Given the historic use of the name PACOM, the fact that the DOD/DOW is doing business with the name PACOM, and the recent spat of PACOM usage in media, the current name is more appropriate than INDOPACOM. However, should reliable media continue to use INDOPACOM going forward, perhaps this request would have more merit. Bravelake (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you that the naming of this article should not be governed by WP:OTHERSTUFF, if only because that guideline concerns the deletion of articles, not their names. :)

In any case, we need not rely on armchair lawyering when we have a memo from Defense Secretary Hegseth explicitly saying that "PACOM" is but a secondary title and not the formal/official/legal name of the command. (Via AP, among the most RS of RSes.)

So how to handle this? By looking at P&Gs, and then discussing how to apply them—as was much done by editors regarding DoD/DoW. In that case, of course, they decided that DoD should come first. The discussion was long indeed, but it seemed to turn on news organizations' refusal to adopt the secondary title unless and until it was elevated in statute. We don't seem to know yet whether media will follow precedent, but given the uncertainty, changing the name of the article was at least premature. It could even expose WP to charges that it put its thumb on the scale for DoD leaders rather than the law. However, should reliable media use PACOM going forward, perhaps the change would have more merit.

In the meantime, our course ought to be reversion, plus a new lede along the lines of "The United States Department of Defense (DoD), also referred to as the Department of War (DoW)..." PRRfan (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but the spirit of the policy is indicative of the notion of local consensus.

We have one outlet reporting on the alleged memo, a story I have not seen be widely reported.

We haven't seen news organizations "refus[e] to adopt the . . . title", though (and that logic doesn't even hold up in the case of the DOD/DOW, with many sources using the DOW nomiker in their reporting).

And, no, there is no basis for such allegations. Wikipedia's naming policies are clear that technical, legal arguments for the name of an entity/organization are not dispostive. To the extent the 2018 NDAA controls over the President's standing authority to alter combatant commands (again, an open question), Wikipedia is not beholden to it, as WP:TITLE makes clear. Bravelake (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• I don't know what this means: "Yes, but the spirit of the policy is indicative of the notion of local consensus."

• "We have one outlet reporting...": That would be the Associated Press, which, as we know, is pretty much the RSiest of RSes.

• "We haven't seen news organizations...": Perhaps you should widen your reading diet to include national newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal), defense trade publications (Defense One, Breaking Defense), wire service stories (Associated Press), or the many other publications that decline to call it DoW.

• I'm having trouble following your final argument here. But as you said, there's no need for armchair lawyering; Hegseth himself says "PACOM" is just a secondary name. PRRfan (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Seems like we're at an impasse. I'd like to invite comment from editors who contributed to the move discussion (@Cyberdog958, @Paine Ellsworth, @Pbritti, @Neovu79) and who discussed the DoD/DoW situation (@Donald Albury, @GN22, @JacobTheRox, @Red0ctober22, @AG202).

To recap: On the evening of 16 June, Pentagon leaders announced that they would rename Indo-Pacific Command as Pacific Command. At 8:56 pm, a WP editor proposed to rename this article as PACOM; the discussion was closed in three hours and the page moved at 12:13 am. Less than two days later, fuller context emerged: a memo in which Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that "PACOM" is merely a "secondary title" because the command's actual name is set in law.

This is the same situation as Hegseth's renaming of the Defense Department to War Department, so should the WP article go by the official name or the "secondary title"? In the case of DoD, editors decided to retain the official title after a discussion that largely turned on the fact that most news media chose to continue using DoD's legal name. In the case of INDOPACOM, it's not yet clear whether media will follow suit. Your thoughts? PRRfan (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'll do a little more research, but from my first reaction from reading that, if even Hegseth acknowledged that it is secondary and the official name is set in law, then it should NOT have been moved. Red0ctober22 (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Has anyone discussed this with the closer? I did not see any discussion on the closer's talk pages in an admittedly quick look. That is supposed to be the first step. Donald Albury 17:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, is it? I figured the discussion belonged here. Looks like @Paine Ellsworth was the closer; I'll drop a note on his Talk page. PRRfan (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Move review for the approved process for contesting page moves. Donald Albury 18:43, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks; I've left this message. PRRfan (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

While SEATO has been dissolved, the treaty at its heart, SEACDT, remains legally in force, though for all intents and purposes it is practically irrelevant. So the poster at the top of this page was correct about the organisation, but not, technically, the treaty. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2026 (UTC)