ebook img

DTIC ADA524805: Making the Case for Multinational Military Doctrine PDF

8 Pages·0.37 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview DTIC ADA524805: Making the Case for Multinational Military Doctrine

2018 Vittori Pgs 1/26/99 3:13 PM Page 109 Making the Case for Multinational Military Doctrine By J AY M. V I T T O R I The strategic goal of collective security and the resultant alliances and coalitions into which the United States Significant has entered require that its aspects of efforts to de- global commit- Armed Forces be prepared velop standard proce- ments, a dwin- for multinational military operations. dures. First, it looks at dling overseas how existing joint doc- —Joint Pub 0-2, presence, and shrinking trine deals with multina- United Action Armed Forces (UNAAF) force levels suggest the tional issues. Second, it United States will con- examines our experience duct most future opera- in producing viable doc- tions in cooperation with its allies, friends, and trine in an international context, with a focus on coalition partners. Thus there is a need for multi- the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). national military doctrine. This article weighs two After the demise of the Soviet Union and dis- solution of the Warsaw Pact, military planners and doctrine developers shifted emphasis from Portuguese frigate superpower confrontation to regional instabili- NPR Batista de Andrade, ties. Since 1989 the United States has mounted Strong Resolve ’98. major operations in Panama, Kuwait, Somalia, Turkey, Haiti, and Bosnia. Although not all can be classified as combined or multinational, each re- quired some interface between our forces and those of other nations.1 Drawdowns coupled with global commitments have reinforced the demand wicz) for doctrine that can address cooperation not P. Cichono oanndly caomaloitniogn t hpea rAtnremrse.d T Fhoer cjoesin bt udto acmtrionneg daelvlieels- mand (Todd oppumbliecnatt ipornosc esisns chea 1s 9y9i1el. dLeeds sm woerlel tkhnaonw 7n5, hjooiwnt- m ever, is the effort to standardize guidance for Co maging multinational military operations (MNOs). Fleet I The Boiler Plate Joint doctrine began to concentrate on multinational activities in 1993. Joint Pub 3-05.3, Joint Special Operations Operational Procedures (ap- Lieutenant Colonel Jay M. Vittori, USAF, is chief of multinational proved August 1993), was the first document to doctrine development at the Air Force Doctrine Center. Spring 1998 / JFQ 109 Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 1998 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-1998 to 00-00-1998 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Making the Case for Multinational Military Doctrine 5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION National Defense University,Institute for National Strategic Studies,260 REPORT NUMBER 5th Avenue SW Fort Lesley J. McNair,Washington,DC,20319 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 7 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 2018 Vittori Pgs 1/26/99 3:13 PM Page 110 n MULTINATIONAL DOCTRINE contain a multinational preface which stated that While the total number for 1997 appears alarm- it set forth ing, only three volumes were approved by mid- year. The proportion with substantive statements ...doctrine to cover the joint activities and perfor- is growing, with 83 percent of the joint pubs ap- mance of the Armed Forces of the United States in proved in 1996 attempting to satisfy the require- joint operations as well as the doctrinal basis for U.S. ments of the preface. military involvement in multinational and intera- Unfortunately there is a flip side. A quarter gency operations. of the total—some 15 titles—have no reference to All subsequent publications, except for a few MNO. Included are several key doctrine volumes which appeared in late 1993, included that state- produced in recent years: Joint Pubs 3-01.4, JTTP ment. It clearly indicates for Joint Suppression of that joint doctrine Enemy Air Defense; Collective security is a strategic goal should address pertinent 3-01.1, Aerospace De- multinational issues. of the United States, and joint operation fense of North America; Of 56 volumes ap- planning will frequently be 3-17, JTTP for Theater proved with this pref- accomplished within the context of Airlift Operations; and ace, 25 have specific 4-04, Joint Doctrine for treaty or alliance operation planning for sections dealing with Civil Engineering Support. multinational operations. MNOs. Some are exem- While it may be argued plary, such as Joint —Joint Pub 5-0, that these topical areas Doctrine for Planning Joint Operations Pubs 2-0, Joint Doctrine do not warrant distinct for Intelligence Support to multinational sections, Operations; 2-01, Joint it is difficult to believe Intelligence Support to Military Operations; 3-0, Doc- any associated operations or functions will not trine forJoint Operations; 3-11, Joint Doctrine for Nu- interface with foreign partners. Also included on clear, Biological and Chemical Defense; 3-13.1, Joint this list is the approved publication on interdic- tion, Joint Pub 3-03. Considering that interdic- three-quarters of all publications have substantive tion efforts in the Gulf War, Turkey, and Bosnia all involved multinational forces, the publica- statements about multinational operations tion’s lack of MNO doctrine is disconcerting. Dis- cussion of it is scant in numerous other volumes. Doctrine for Command and Control Warfare; and Of 51 studied, 28 had fewer than five substantive 3-57, Doctrine for Joint Civil Affairs. Three-quarters statements. Overall, statistics indicate that of all publications have substantive statements progress is ongoing, but many publications fall about multinational operations. short of the preface requirement. There seems to be an increase in the percent- Development of the most significant publi- age approved with MNO content (see figure 1). cation on MNO, Joint Pub 3-16, Joint Doctrine for Multinational Operations, began in 1994. The pro- gram directive called for addressing MNO as part of alliances, coalitions, and ad hoc arrangements Figure 1. Publications Trends (December 1997) and for including organizational structures, plan- ning, and execution. The major audience for this tome is joint force commanders, component commanders, and the staffs which plan and exe- 83 cute MNO. 75 74 73 Writing was initiated at a conference hosted by the primary review authority, the National De- 63 fense University (NDU). Two drafts followed, the 57 53 first written by NDU and the second by the Joint 45 Warfighting Center. The subsequent coordination not only included the required reviewers but also service chiefs and combatant commanders. The 25 25 few contentious issues included command and control of forces—foreign control of U.S. forces and airlift assets. But Joint Pub 3-16 has not fared 0 0 well during final coordination. It appears the Air 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total Force, Marine Corps, and possibly Navy will not Percentage of publications with specific Percentage of publications with significant concur. In the case of the Air Force the concern is sections on multinational doctrine mention of multinational doctrine over a section on space operations that was added 110 JFQ / Spring 1998 2018 Vittori Pgs 1/26/99 3:13 PM Page 111 Vittori since the preliminary draft. The Navy and Marines Another problem has surfaced. The project dispute wording on relations among joint force proposal for Joint Pub 4-08, Joint Doctrine for Logis- commanders, airspace control authority, and area tic Support of Multinational Operations, won ap- air defense commanders. None of the issues relate proval after heated debate among the services and to multinational matters; rather, they replay age- commands. The argument centered on the alleged old turf battles among the services. need for developing a separate specialized multina- When published Joint Pub 3-16 will be an tional logistics publication versus addressing the “above-the-line publication.” This refers to the subject through revisions to existing joint logistics distinction in the joint doctrine hierarchy be- publications. The program directive for Joint Pub tween key doctrinal publications and subordinate 4-08 declares that it “will describe the unique logis- supporting doctrine and tical aspects associated tactics, techniques, and with multinational oper- In almost all cases, strategic movement procedures publications ations to include plan- will require integration with the listed below them. ning, coordination, exe- Joint Pub 3-16 tack- movement, organizations, and cution, command and les several issues. The capabilities of allies in control, and deconflic- most valuable doctrine international military organizations tion of logistics require- relates to command and ments.”2 This notion is and/or coalition partners. control (chapter II) not a far cry from the which addresses the de- —Joint Pub 4-01.3, multinational preface. JTTP for Movement Control gree of control foreign Unfortunately, approval commanders may exer- of Joint Pub 4-08 could cise over U.S. forces, the establish a precedent for role of multinational force commanders, and intri- separate multinational doctrine and possibly cacies of multinational command and control spawn multinational publications on topics such structures. Another useful section is a comman- as public affairs, meteorology, or intermodal con- der’s checklist for MNO (appendix A). However, it tainers. Thus it might behoove the Joint Staff contains little ground-breaking information. For through the Directorate of Operational Plans and instance, the section entitled “Types of Multina- Interoperability (J-7)—particularly the joint doc- tional Operations” fea- trine working party—to reconsider Joint Pub 4-08. doctrine development with allies tures a list that includes war and all military op- U.S.-Ratified Procedures and coalition partners is a erations other than war. Multinational doctrine also is developed complicated process warranting Moreover, the tenets of through formal alliances, bilateral arrangements, multinational coopera- and multilateral organizations. Some may be sur- close scrutiny and attention tion are nothing more prised to learn that such doctrine may take prior- than common sense ity over approved joint doctrine. As stipulated terms such as respect, rapport, knowledge of part- within the multinational preface: ners, and patience. Overall, Joint Pub 3-16 fulfills Commanders of forces operating as part of a multina- the requirements of the program directive and tional (coalition or alliance) military command should be useful for commanders. should follow multinational doctrines and guidance ratified by the United States. Do We Need More? The multinational preface and program di- For instance, if the United States participates rective for Joint Pub 3-16 appear to be in conflict. in a NATO operation, it will do so in accordance If all joint doctrine is to provide a basis for U.S. with U.S.-ratified NATO procedures. military involvement in multinational opera- Doctrine development with allies and coali- tions, is there need for a separate tome on MNO? tion partners is a complicated process warranting One may argue that there is nothing in Joint Pub close scrutiny and attention to detail. Responsi- 3-16 that cannot be parceled to other volumes. bility for a particular military doctrine matter On the other hand, not all live up to their pref- flows from the Office of the Secretary of Defense aces and thus leave gaps to be bridged in such and Chairman to a designated lead service or volumes as Joint Pub 3-16. A compromise would agency. This is the major difference between the allow it to exist until key MNO issues can be fully national and international doctrine development addressed by applicable publications. systems. The U.S. process is dominated by a joint structure directly involved with development, ac- ceptance, distribution, and implementation of Spring 1998 / JFQ 111 2018 Vittori Pgs 1/26/99 3:13 PM Page 112 n MULTINATIONAL DOCTRINE doctrine. The international system primarily de- the Commanding General of the Marine Corps pends upon the services to take the lead. The Di- Combat Development Center coordinates partici- rectorate for Operational Plans and Interoperabil- pation by that service. The Secretary of the Air ity (J-7) is tasked only with monitoring doctrinal Force has assigned responsibility for such matters standardization and interoperability efforts and to the Departmental Standardization Office serving as the office of primary responsibility which, in turn, delegates them to the Air Force (OPR) for non-matériel, multinational opera- International Standardization Office. Among tional activities save for myriad duties this office those issues related to assigns senior represen- In most scenarios, the combatant intelligence, special op- tatives to working par- erations, security assis- commander will be working ties and panels and also tance, and command, with multinational forces in the monitors the doctrine control, communica- prosecution of a conflict or military ratification process. tions, and computers. operations other than war. As such, NATO, the largest Included in that developer and user of it is imperative that full consideration be instruction is guidance multinational doctrine, given to multinational concerns. for U.S. involvement has a complex process. with multinational mil- —Joint Pub 3-11, Its various standardiza- itary doctrine develop- Joint Doctrine for Nuclear, tion bodies include the Biological, and Chemical Defense ment.3 Each service has NATO Standardization a structure to manage Office, Conference of standardization. For ex- National Armaments ample, the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army Directors, NATO C3 Board, Senior NATO Logisti- for International Affairs oversees the standardiza- cians Conference, and Military Agency for Stan- tion program through its International Plans and dardization (figure 2). Policy Division though most working party ex- The Military Committee is responsible for pertise for NATO doctrine is tasked through U.S. military standardization policy and the Military Army Training and Doctrine Command. The Agency for Standardization executes it. The latter Navy has transferred most of its doctrine-related has four boards—three service (army, naval, and taskings for the international military standard- air) and one joint to manage standardization in ization program from the Chief of Naval Opera- their areas of responsibility. The U.S. Army, Navy, tions to the Naval Warfare Development Com- and Air Force have board representatives perma- mand. The Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans, nently assigned to NATO headquarters. Policies, and Operations at Headquarters, U.S. Working groups serve as focal points for as- Marine Corps, supervises standardization while signed functional areas. The United States has at least one representative on each. More encom- passing working groups require more delegates. Figure 2. Selected NATO Standardization Activities North Atlantic Council Military Committee NATO Standardization Conference of National Office Armaments Directors Military Agency for Standardization Senior NATO NATO C3 Board Logisticians Conference Army Board Naval Board Air Board Joint Service Board Working Working Working Groups Groups Groups 112 JFQ / Spring 1998 2018 Vittori Pgs 1/26/99 3:13 PM Page 113 Vittori German and Italian vehicles in Pale. Cheung) Squadron (Lance mera Ca mbat Co 1st For instance, the Interservice Air Operations range from basic arrangements to encompassing Working Group has six to ten American delega- bodies of doctrine like that developed for the Re- tion members, to include representatives from public of Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command. the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and various A designated Joint Staff OPR works bilateral mili- contractors. For the most part the services, not tary agreements and coordinates with the services joint agencies, control U.S. involvement with and unified commands. Numerous multinational NATO working groups. organizations develop doctrine. Normally efforts It is through working groups that most stan- are functionally organized and involve common dardization agreements (STANAGs) and allied national interests. For example, Australia, the publications (APs) are developed and approved. United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and the NATO currently has nearly 1,300 STANAGs and United States constitute the Air Standardization more than 350 APs. Few would qualify as doc- Coordinating Committee (ASCC) and a naval trine because they are procedural-level directives. counterpart (AUSCANNZUKUS), while the Ameri- STANAGs and APs are developed from study can, British, Canadian, Australian (ABCA) Armies drafts, prepared by a custodial nation, and re- Organization focuses on issues of interoperability viewed by member nations and commands. among land forces. These organizations have es- Members have the option to ratify the doctrine tablished working parties which develop agree- and may do so with reservations—stated qualifi- ments and standards through processes similar to cations describing the parts of the STANAG which those used by NATO. a government chooses to implement either with Through ratification members are able to im- or without limitations. When a sufficient number plement publications or agreements by ensuring of nations have recommended ratification (usu- national procedures are aligned. For instance, ally eight), the STANAG is ratified. when the United States subscribed to NATO Outside NATO, multinational military doc- ATP-56, Air to Air Refuelling, the Alliance expected trine is developed through bilateral agreements our Armed Forces to incorporate the procedures and multinational organizations. Bilateral accords in applicable publications. While it appears that ratified, internationally developed doctrine drives Spring 1998 / JFQ 113 2018 Vittori Pgs 1/26/99 3:13 PM Page 114 n MULTINATIONAL DOCTRINE our doctrine for related subjects, it frequently One problem area stems from the policy al- works the other way. CJCS Instruction 2700.01 lowing a service to apply its doctrine when no ap- asserts, “Once approved, joint doctrine provides plicable joint doctrine exists or when single ser- the initial national position for multinational vice issues are involved in multinational doctrine. doctrine development.” While practical, this Therefore, U.S. repre- practice sometimes Multinational operations are now the sentatives must ensure leads to “backdooring,” that “entering argu- norm for military operations. whereby a service is able ments” for any new or —Joint Pub 2-01, to garner international revised doctrine are in Joint Intelligence Planning concurrence on doctri- accordance with estab- nal concepts still under lished joint doctrine. review in the United The Air Force has taken this a step farther in Air States and, in turn, use such agreement as leverage Force Policy Directive 60-1, Operations and Re- to gain approval for joint use at home. Another sources Standardization: problem is that not all working parties have par- ticipants from every service. It is thus incumbent The Air Force will not support the adoption of or on the representing service to update other ser- ratify any standard that conflicts with national, inter- vices on key issues. Poorly coordinated working national, or U.S. military practices, unless a peculiar party activities could result in another service not military operational requirement exists, or a civil seeing a project until the ratification phase. With standard is unacceptable for military use. U.S. joint a central U.S. joint agency overseeing doctrine de- publications will be the basis of U.S. positions for de- velopment efforts of major working parties, this veloping, ratifying and implementing [international backdoor approach could be reduced and all of military standardization]agreements.4 the services would be better informed. While not codified as such by all services, this There is another major aspect of service in- concept is the standard goal for U.S. working party volvement. A designated lead service or agency delegates. Most allies understand this view yet may (often the former) is responsible for directing U.S. not agree. Our closest partners tend to study our ratification. This is a questionable delegation of au- joint doctrine, accept its strong points, and adeptly thority that can lead to difficulties. For instance, provide compromises for contentious areas. services may propose U.S. reservations in the ratifi- cation phase. While these recommendations The Backdoor Approach should reflect established joint doctrine, there may If working party delegates and multinational be occasions where a joint precedent does not doctrine reviewers carry out their prescribed du- exist. Services may therefore have to fall back on ties, internationally developed doctrine should their own doctrine. The complexity increases align with U.S. joint doctrine. Where conflicts when a recommended reservation is disputed by arise delegates can propose changes. If differences one service. Based on CJCSI 2700.01, the lead ser- are not resolved the United vice or agency should attempt to reach a resolu- despite some infighting the States could evoke nonrati- tion. Failing that the issue is forwarded to the Joint fication or reservations. Staff for action. Most likely a representative of the services have cooperated in With regard to recent im- Directorate of Operational Plans and Interoperabil- international doctrine forums provements to NATO, ity (J-7) will serve as OPR for doctrinal matters. The ASCC, and ABCA publica- process would be more efficient if a designated tions, it appears that dele- joint agency was in control of ratification from the gates and doctrine reviewers are fulfilling their re- outset. Ratification is a national issue and should sponsibilities. Despite some infighting the not be relegated to any one service. services have cooperated in international doc- Still another problem is distributing agree- trine forums. Delegations usually base discussions ments and publications. Internationally devel- on established joint doctrine. Nonetheless prob- oped doctrine tends to trickle down to the lowest lems exist, most relating to interservice squabbles levels. Unlike joint doctrine, it is distributed and the lack of a strong central function to re- mostly by a pull down system: the user must re- solve such matters. quest the item from a distribution office.5A docu- National Security Strategy Core Values: To en- ment cannot be obtained unless customers are hance our security with effective diplomacy and with aware of it. Thus it is imperative for working party military forces that are ready to fight and win. To bol- ster America’s economic prosperity. To promote democracy abroad. —National Security Strategy(May 1997) 114 JFQ / Spring 1998 2018 Vittori Pgs 1/26/99 3:13 PM Page 115 Vittori delegates to pass on the status of new or revised agencies of the implementation responsibility, doctrine to users. Unclassified NATO STANAGs, could improve the process. ASCC air standards, and ABCA agreements are The United States has made progress in in- available through a single DOD point—the De- corporating MNO concerns into its joint doctrine. fense Printing Office Internationally, U.S. (DPO). Classified prod- doctrine developers There is a high probability ucts and NATO APs have effectively repre- that any military operation undertaken must be ordered sented their interests in through service publica- by the United States of America the course of develop- tion distribution sys- will have multinational aspects, ing key military doc- tems.6 These distribu- so extensive is the network of alliances, trine publications and tors rely on timely agreements. Progress friendships, and mutual interests receipt of new publica- notwithstanding, some established by our Nation tions. Generally, this is areas require attention, a problem for NATO around the world. most relating to overall publications. An awk- —Joint Pub 1, control. The lead service ward system requires Joint Warfare of the Armed Forces or agency appears to the doctrine custodian of the United States have too much respon- to pass new Alliance sibility. There should be material, in turn, to the one agency to control appropriate NATO board, the national representa- ratification, implementation, and distribution of tives to that board, and national service/agency internationally developed doctrine. As the single publications distribution systems. organization designated to monitor doctrinal Centralizing functions could eradicate some standardization activities, the Directorate for Op- distribution problems. Ideally, the custodian erational Plans and Interoperability (J-7), Joint should be able to send the document to a single Staff, appears to be a logical choice. JFQ U.S. distribution point responsible for notifying customers of its availability. Also, a single distribu- NOTES tion agency eliminates each service maintaining 1Multinationalas applied to military doctrine is a rel- the same publications. Under the current process, atively new term originated by a Pentagon staff officer for example, Air Force publication distribution of- who found it more appropriate than the universally ac- fices hold various land, naval, and amphibious ceptedcombined. operations publications in much the same way as 2See final draft of program directive for Joint Pub 4-08, other service centers maintain air-related docu- Doctrine for Logistic Support of Multinational Operations, ments. If DPO maintained classified documents Joint Staff Action J-7A 00892–96 (April 10, 1997). and NATO APs, it would relieve the services of this 3CJCS Instruction 2700.01, International Military Ra- responsibility by providing one-stop shopping for tionalization, Standardization, and Interoperability between the United States and Its Allies and Other Friendly Nations, all internationally developed military doctrine. p. B-4. By far the most critical problem area is the im- 4Air Force Policy Directive 60-1, Operations and Re- plementation process, the agreement made by a sources Standardization, p. 3. nation during ratification to enforce agreements 5The Navy has a sophisticated push system which by a given date. This may require a lead service or automatically distributes documents to designated agency to introduce changes to a designated na- users. The Air Force relies on a pull/push system which tional doctrine.The ratified publication itself may forces users to first establish their requirements before be the implementing document, which usually oc- being placed on automatic distribution. curs when there is no approved national doctrine. 6Government agencies or contractors may obtain There is no established system to ensure that rati- copies of unclassified NATO, ASCC, and ABCA agree- ments and standards by calling DPO at (215) 687–2179 fied agreements are properly implemented; it is left or DSN 442–2179/2667 or via FAX at (215) 697–2978 or to a lead service or agency. Furthermore, it is diffi- DSN 442–2978. cult to implement procedures through joint doc- trine documents that normally change over a three to four year cycle. This sequence may not coincide with other producers such as NATO, which delays implementation. Fortunately, the caveat in the multinational preface asserting U.S. support of rati- fied doctrine serves as an interim implementation measure. A central function, relieving services and Spring 1998 / JFQ 115

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.