• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Problems and Solutions in Future Coalition Operations

Edited by Phillip Kaiser, Jon Kessmeier, Mr. Thomas J. Marshall.

April 22, 1997

99 Pages

Brief Synopsis

Each year, the United States Army, Europe (USAREUR) undertakes a conference-study program on a matter of strategic significance, with several objectives. The topic relates to USAREUR's mission; anticipates future requirements; contributes toward building democratic norms within the militaries of emerging democracies; and serves to inform the USAREUR staff, higher headquarters and other U.S. Government agencies of active measures to improve current practices.

In 1996, USAREUR undertook to study "Problems and Solutions in Future Coalition Operations." That topic was germane not only because of the U.S. Government's participation in several current coalitions, but also because USAREUR will continue to be in the vanguard, participating in a wide variety of multinational operations. While coalitions may be a way of life for most militaries, changes in the geostrategic environment over the past several years have created new challenges and opportunities for U.S. participation. Protecting the Kurds in Iraq after the Gulf War, supporting humanitarian relief operations in Rwanda, deploying a preventive diplomacy force to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to guard against a spillover of the Balkan conflict, and providing forces to support the implementation of the Dayton Accords for Bosnia have tested the United States' ability to work with new partners, in support of new missions, in unfamiliar parts of the world.

There are important similarities and differences between these new coalition operations, and large military operations and bygone NATO plans for operations in Europe against the Warsaw Pact. In fact, some of the former Warsaw Pact states are now partners in coalitions with the United States Other countries from Africa and Asia Minor have participated as well. These new partners have not only not trained together, but often have very different military traditions and cultures.

Another new issue is the activity of nonmilitary and nongovernmental actors in the area of coalition operations. Civil organizations including large engineering firms brought into contract support services and private volunteer organizations implementing a variety of programs may impact on coalition operations. Media organizations are active and unfettered, which would not be the case in large-scale military operations. Furthermore, rather than being under the direction of a strong lead nation or existing alliance, some operations may be mandated by an international organization such as the United Nations, with an ad hoc command structure subordinated to a regional organization.

Although similarities exist between new coalition operations and large scale military operations, many factors have a stronger influence in a coalition situation. Differences in languages, terminology, military doctrine, equipment, capabilities, and command organization may all have been present in previous operations, but may be exacerbated by the level of interaction among units and limited preparation time available to most coalitions.

The 1996 USAREUR program addressed coalition operations at the lower end of the spectrum of conflict, as well as typical peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance operations. The program was not designed to address largescale combat intensive military operations on the order of a Desert Shield/Desert Storm. While some of the findings and recommendations from this study apply to larger operations, the focus was on improving lower level operations which are becoming more frequent, have a higher probability for confusion and misunderstanding, less planning time, and a myriad of participants in addition to the military.

There were two stages to the program. The first stage consisted of two workshops. One workshop drew participants from Eastern Europe, Russia, Georgia, and Ukraine; the second from Africa (see List of Participants). The overall purpose of the workshops was to define the problems in future coalition operations, drawing from the experience of recent and potential future participants. Each workshop had the same core group of facilitators and Western European attendees. Six topics were addressed at the workshops, each facilitated by a U.S. military expert in that area. The topics were: history and culture; forces and organization; technology; training and doctrine; logistics and resources; and command and control. While the topics themselves are important, the selection of the six distinct topics was a device for organizing the effort and does not imply separation in practice. In fact, many of the areas overlapped and are interrelated. For that reason, the authors have selected four areas to report on, subsuming forces and logistics within the context of the overall discussion. For each of these topic areas a “guidelines” paper was prepared as a read-ahead that laid out the issues to be addressed and what product the workshops should produce. The results of the workshops were used to frame issues and propose possible solutions, presented at stage two of the program—a high-level multinational conference at Headquarters, U.S. Army Europe, in Heidelberg, Germany. Following the Heidelberg conference a report of findings and recommendations for improving future operations was widely disseminated.

This book reports in greater depth on four significant aspects of coalition operations: historical and cultural influences, command, technology, and doctrine and training. Steve Bowman identifies points of friction caused by historical and cultural differences among forces, and how they influence the decision to join a coalition, agreement on goals, and organization of operations, among other things. Some of the challenges are logistical problems caused by religious and cultural requirements, equipment availability, and the capability of various forces. Language and terminology differences can cause miscommunications and negatively affect operations. An example related to many types of peace operations is the role to be played by police forces as opposed to military forces. Military forces should not be used for missions outside their normal operations. It may be necessary to integrate the police forces of participating states into the coalition, or engage the police of the host nation. How effectively this is accomplished depends on an appreciation by the lead nation commander of the recipient nation’s culture and experience.

Command and control issues will continue to dominate the formation and operation of future coalitions. Thomas- Durell Young discusses the difficulty of establishing unity of command and suggests that the best that planners may presume a leader will achieve is unity of effort. Nations are reluctant to place their forces under foreign command, and will seek to retain the greatest amount of control over them as possible. This may pose severe problems if the situation escalates in intensity, requiring additional leadership authority during an operation. Young also addresses three models for command and control — lead nation, parallel, and integrated command — and the difficult task of transfer of authority. One clear finding that could be addressed today, within NATO, is the lack of common definitions and graphics among potential coalition partners.

Asymmetries in technology among coalition partners pose the greatest threat to cohesion and effectiveness during combat operations. Steven Metz examines many issues of asymmetry, including different degrees of reliance on technology, utilization of different forms of technology, and using it for different purposes. Interoperability of communications equipment is one specific example noted by the author. The rapid development of commercial technology offers the means to standardize communications among disparate partners, given the willingness of the more advanced states to share such technology.

Military doctrine is so closely associated with national traditions there is little hope of standardization among partners in a coalition. Avoiding the trap of attempting to force one’s doctrine on a coalition, commanders should concentrate on seeking agreement on general administrative and operational principles for the given occasion. Michael Smith suggests preparing regional doctrinal considerations that take into account national differences and provide a template that can be customized for a specific operation. Likewise, dictionaries could be prepared that would provide common understanding of terminology. Permanent institutions for regional information exchange and training would help develop trust among potential coalition members that would pay off when a crisis requiring quick coalition formation occurs.

Generally speaking, analyzing the obstacles, and preparing, planning, and training to address them, will mitigate their effects on coalition operations. Developing common operating principles and institutionalizing coalition training will improve the likelihood of success.

Access Full Report [PDF]: Problems and Solutions in Future Coalition Operations