Multinational Operations C2 Arrangement Essay Example

achieved.

Unless the reality of the diverging issues of theory and practice is combined harmoniously by effective coordination, elements of the system will start moving in opposite directions. In the interest of avoiding the negative impact of the processes, a study on past historical multinational/ combined/joint military wars and operations would be the most appropriate platform in examining the effectiveness of coordination by analyzing the mechanism of command and control of the military components involved. Command and Coordination Mechanism of Multinational Joint Operations 1.

Introduction Multinational operations are not new concepts, but the evolution of its application has proven it to be the most reliable tool in managing threats of violence across the globe. The end of the cold war has offered opportunities and challenges for nations to embrace more effective cooperation in order to prevent belligerent threats and deadly conflicts. One legacy of the cold war is thinking of the use of military force in terms of either doing nothing or employing overwhelming forces in a decisive manner.

Such thinking is no longer appropriate, but a middle ground solution involving a more modest use of international force in a limited yet persistent manner favored to be the best compromise. In this way, leaders would be willing to commit their states to the international efforts if they are confident in the ability of the international community to manage an intervention successfully. Such confidence together with a clear understanding of the costs, risks, expected duration of a contemplated intervention and the prospects of success would convince leaders to make a compelling case and take the risks associated with military intervention.

Past practices have proven beneficial both in terms of increased

knowledge and experience base on studies advanced in developing a more systematic approach in dealing with international crises. Issues that at one time seemed intractable, like forming coalitions and establishing fully capable coordinating mechanisms for military operations, are now proven less complicated in light of the lessons learnt. One such major phenomenon has been the modern notion of command and control in coalition operations, a relatively enduring undertaking in recent times.

This essay will examine selected command arrangements since the Second World War and in doing so, the paper will establish that coordination is essential to the command function in effectively integrating the complex combat systems in multinational joint operations. Discussions will be advanced to elevate the importance of other entities crucial to the command and control of operations and finally parallels drawn and compared to two separate and very distinct multinational joint operations I was privilege to have served with in recent years. . Management of Multinational Force Multinational operation is a military operation carried out by two or more nations. They are managed in a variety of ways either under an alliance/regional organization, a coalition, or supervised by the United Nations. 1 In all cases, the purpose, scope and possible operational timeline along with an effective interface between the military commanders and the political leaders are clearly defined in the mandate authorizing the military commitment.

This interface should translate broad political objectives into explicit military missions that in turn will determine the composition of the forces. Unified operational control of the multinational forces and systematic supervision with regular feedback to the political leadership are central to all these management systems. Each of the above arrangements

presents its own diverse and difficult challenges. The UN management system will likely be limited to peacekeeping and even in this restricted role, there is room for improvement.

Management by an alliance is an excellent concept and NATO would be a classical example. The North Atlantic alliance possesses a highly capable command and planning structure with a well-established Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF). Coalitions are favored to be the most likely arrangements for managing multinational military interventions due to its much flexible characteristics that can also be tailored to meet varying contingencies. Within the United Nations structure, the Security Council and the Secretariat each play a distinct role.

The role of the SC is to provide the ultimate source of legitimacy for the multinational military operation and that authority, thus becomes the unifying purpose for the international commitment for a multinational military intervention. 2 The UN's other role involves managing peacekeeping operations under the secretary-general in conjunction with his diplomatic role in conflict resolution. It is important to understand that in addressing threats of violence under the UN Charter, there are two specific chapters which outline commitment of multinational forces when required. Chapter VI defined as the „Pacific settlement of disputes? is passive in its application and has limitations. Peacekeeping operations are undertaken only with the consent of the belligerents, and UN contingents cannot use force except for self-defense. The main focus of this effort is on the latter stages of conflict, usually after a cease-fire agreement has been reached. Chapter VII, a more robust mandate is usually authorized in extreme cases where there is an urgent need to bring an immediate end to violence and an

expedient restoration of an enforced peace in the environment.

Alliances in the view of many observers should carry more loads of multinational operations. Established trends have proven that conflicts occur in areas between bordering states. The threat in this regard is more immediate to neigbouring states and they usually have better understanding of the problem and its cultural context than far away nations. Despite these advantages, most regional organizations decide not to intervene militarily in conflicts because they are neither appropriately structured to manage military operations nor do they have the necessary resources.

Coalitions are the more promising alternative to UN and alliances. Nations that form coalitions are self-selected states with a genuine interest in preventing deadly conflict. Past experience has proven that they either template their command structure similar to NATO or rely mainly on the assets of the leading partners. Like-minded nations will often possess interoperable equipment, which will ease logistical problems and many will have already conducted bilateral and multilateral military exercises.

Since these coalitions usually involve one or more of the major powers, materials and financial support is always assured. 3. Coalitions and Alliances Operations ADFP 101 defines coalition operations as one conducted by forces of two or more nations which may not be allies, but acting together for the accomplishment of a single mission4. JP 1-02 (2001) provides the additional notion of the ad hoc nature of coalition operations with the definition that a coalition is „an ad hoc arrangement between two or more nations for common action?. Compared to the certainties of an alliance where trust could be built over a number of years, with a coalition, different forces operate in ad

hoc arrangements with non-traditional partners to serve a short-term purpose. This leaves the multinational commanders to inherit „coalitions of the willing? , designed to meet political-strategic, rather than operational and tactical, requirements. The 1991 Gulf War or INTERFET in 1999 are classical examples. Conversely, an alliance is the result of formal agreements between two or more sovereign nations for broad and long-term objectives.

However there was no real need to coin such terms prior to the introduction of air forces as a third service and the increased occurrence of joint and multi-national operations that came about in the 1940s. While it may not be possible to definitely establish the claim, there is evidence that the term „Command and Control? originated during this period amongst the Western Allies to describe those command arrangements necessary to achieve unity of effort through unity of command. 5.

Evolution of Command Arrangements - Second World War The conceptual development of multinational command and control was perhaps the most significant accomplishment of the Allies during the Second World War, but Eisenhower and his fellow commanders? would certainly remind us of its importance. 8 As one of the early pioneers, Eisenhower had to grapple with two diverging issues as he sought to develop a workable command structure for operations in the European Theater. A difficulty noted in his attempt was, he tried to unify command of the strategic air forces to support the Normandy invasion.

Eisenhower? s aim was to win control of all aviation assets of the allied nations, in order to achieve the desired goal of his Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force, (SHAEF). 9 This was never forthcoming initially, due to diametrically opposing

views on the command process held by the United States and British. The British agreed that the Supreme Commander have only „supervision? of the strategic air forces which the American queried as they thought it should be under „command?. 0 Assigned to lead operation TORCH in 1942, Eisenhower put great personal energy into the development of a combined staff for his Allied Force Headquarters. In January of 1945, General Eisenhower had a fully functioning operational staff and a mature command structure with the army, navy and air force as its three interdependent dimensional components. The structure he took back into Europe for operation OVERLORD was a version of his TORCH command concept refined over twelve months of combat.

It served him exceptionally well during the invasion and breakout, repulsing the German winter counterattack and through the final dual axis penetration into Germany in the spring of 1945. 11 The Allied multinational structure included integration of the intelligence, operations and plans functions and provided for coordination of national sub-sections dealing with personnel and logistics issues. The foundation for this combined staff was a layer of dimensional commanders and their staff (air, land and sea) which planned and executed operations and coordinated with each other.

Supporting these staff were key cells that focused and integrated component actions like air coordination cells between the air and ground components, to develop the best possible effect in achieving the mission. In general, national commitments were matched by command authority and staff representation.. Post-Cold War - Inchon-Seoul Campaign In June 1950 the North Korean Army invaded South Korea and General MacArthur, the theater commander had initially underestimated the North Koreans.

As one of the

last experienced operational commanders of previous wars, he understood that multidimensional synergy was a force multiplier given his vastly superior air and naval forces. With the unified efforts of his Army and Air commanders, MacArthur marshaled a multinational task force to strike the North Korean line of supply deep in its rear at the critical hub of power in the heart of Seoul. 12 Operation CHROMITE illustrated many of the current principles of multinational command.

The concepts of Joint boards, component commanders, decentralized operations, synchronization of air, land and sea, were techniques used to good effect. Unfortunately, these tools began to decay soon after MacArthur left his command and the allied effort soon withered, a tremendous disadvantage reflecting overwhelming American dominance in this coalition operation. 13 7. The Six Days and Yom Kippur War The late 1960s witnessed both the climax of the multinational operational experience in Vietnam and the beginning of a joint revival.

The re-birth began to take shape in an unexpected place beyond measure. First, Israelis planned and executed their 1967 war with the full employment of all three services. The Israeli Air Force stole a march on the Egyptian forces along the Suez, destroying the adversary? s air force on the ground and securing the time necessary for naval and ground forces to meet their opponents on favorable terms. 14 This was a victory in a war of high technology. The 1967 Arab-Israeli war got everyone? attention including the Egyptians who found defeat to be an excellent teacher. In 1973 they turned the tables on the Israelis, with effective use of air defense and air maneuver in the face of a static defense

tactic – the Bar-Lev line. Only at the last moment did the Israelis return to a joint manoeuver concept which re-established a basis for the cessation of hostilities between the two overextended forces. 15 The Arab coalition in both of these wars became a critical weakness that the Israelis were able to use to their advantage. 8.

Paradigm Shift - Desert Shield and Storm The American emphasis on multinational operations began to take form under General Colin Powell. The 1991 Gulf War exemplifies joint force operations, but it was still overly controlled and fraught with service competition. Operation DESERT STORM did illustrate the return of multinational command and control structures. Coalition effectiveness was an early priority and the military commanders understood that a responsive structure had to be developed that incorporated each national contribution in a way that maximized its effectiveness and minimized its limitations.