#8 The “Unity of Effort Model” & Multinational Commanders
– Vital for Success in Multinational Operations
– Dr Regeena Kingsley
Unity of Effort: Vital for Success in MNOs
Regardless of the means employed to achieve unity of effort within any Multinational Operation (MNO), the actual attainment of unity of effort is crucial for the effective and successful prosecution of multinational campaigns (see blog “#7 The Fundamental Principle of “Unity of Effort” in Multinational Operations”). It is the prerequisite for success in all forms of multinational military operations without which ‘any organization’s work can negate the advances made by others’.[1] As Glenn states: ‘The operational principle is unity of effort…unity of effort is the function we require for success in any operation’. [2]
In short, true unity of effort – signifying the attainment of a ‘common purpose and direction through unity of command, coordination, and cooperation’ – is regarded as a critical precondition for operational effectiveness and mission accomplishment within MNOs.[3]
Operational effectiveness, in turn, is characterised by two principal factors:
- (1) the effective prosecution of the military campaign; and
- (2) the timely attainment of objectives.
The “Unity of Effort Model” for Successful MNOs
When all of these important concepts for achieving operational effectiveness within MNOs are put together, a comprehensive picture emerges. This resulting “unity of effort model” for attaining effective and successful multinational security operations can be seen in Figure 1.5 below.
Unity of purpose, achieved either through unity of command or cooperation, coordination and consensus (or indeed both), leads to the crucially important factor of unity of effort. Unity of effort in turn leads to operational effectiveness, characterised by the effective prosecution of the military campaign and the timely attainment of objectives.
Figure 1.5 – The Overall Picture: The process for attaining Unity of Effort, and thereby Operational Effectiveness, within Multinational Operations.
As multinational coalitions embark on increasingly complex campaigns in the security climate of the modern era, this emphasis on unity of effort will become more and more important with the passing years. As Corn has concluded:
In the complex contemporary operational environment confronted by military commanders, this principle has never been more important. Today’s military operations are defined by rapidly advancing military capabilities, complex weapon systems, unprecedented access to information, and inevitable intermingling of combatant and civilian personnel in the battle-space. Because of these and other operational realities, the principle of unity of effort ensures the synchronization of numerous and complex operational capabilities. Unity of effort is accordingly an essential component of effective national and coalition/multi-national operations.[4]
This fact is true even as the principle becomes conversely more difficult to attain as the number of coalition partners in a multinational operation expands in size to involve up to 50 different participating nations (the total number of nations that have contributed forces to the multinational ISAF operation in Afghanistan).
What this means, as Pudas argues, is that each MNO will be unique to itself with regard to how its commanders achieve unity of effort within the international force. ‘Ad hoc coalitions will continue to be unique in terms of their membership and the obstacles encountered in attempting to achieve unity of effort’, he states.[5] Nevertheless, regardless of the disparity between modern MNOs, the attainment of unity of effort will always remain a paramount consideration.
Desired Characteristics of Operational Commanders of MNOs
Upon perusing such an exacting list of features required to generate unity of effort and thereby execute an effective multinational campaign (see blog #7), it becomes clear that a rather masterful Multinational Force (MNF) Operational Commander is needed to direct each MNO and productively manage and countervail the mosaic of oppositional forces within a MNF.
According to the definition provided by the U.S. Department of Defense, a Multinational Force Commander (MNFC) is:
‘A commander who exercises command authority over a military force composed of elements from two or more nations. The extent of the multinational force commander’s command authority is determined by the participating nations’.[6]
However, in reality, a successful MNFC must be much more than simply an officer exercising command authority over an international force, but an experienced, learned and multitalented ‘military diplomat’ and economist – a master in command, management, leadership, negotiation and persuasion.[7]
The MNFC must be the chief visionary, instigator, promoter and enforcer of unity of effort within the multinational force, and personally create a consensus-based cooperative ‘command climate’ through being:
- (1) objective, visible and fair to all;
- (2) mindful and respectful of the role each nation plays within the operation;
- (3) trustworthy and capable of building up trust between various MNF actors through personal contact and liaison;
- (4) inclusive and diplomatic with regard to sensitive issues like intelligence-sharing;
- (5) fully aware of the limitations within which the various national forces under him or her must operate; and
- (6) continually develop compensatory solutions to enhance and maximise unity of effort within the MNF .[8]
Furthermore, especially in parallel and multi-parallel Lead Nation command arrangements, the MNFC must further assure effective C² and enhance unity of effort by commanding through an ‘integrated multinational staff’, comprised of members drawn from all national parties participating in the operation. According to Marich, these staff perform a critical role in ‘integrating the effort of all parties into unity of effort if not unity of command’, and when combined with Liaison Officers, ‘can provide a multinational force commander with a variety of options normally not available to a national HQ’.[9] However leadership of such a staff is in itself often a very complicated enterprise: the intrinsic differences between staff members must be at once acknowledged, coordinated, and smoothed down through the promotion of respect, rapport, knowledge, and communication.[10]
In sum, the MNFC must be a trail-blazer and skilful manager, creating a clear path through a sea of ambiguity, confusion and discord. Moreover, he or she must accomplish all this while on foreign soil, confronting foreign Enemy forces in an unstable and conflictive environment (which sometimes also fight asymmetrically by means of un-uniformed insurgency fighters hiding within the civilian population), and while serving at the head of a largely foreign – and therefore somewhat discordant – international military force, operating under various legal frameworks and even in pursuit of disparate national interests and agendas. It is a tall order by any standard.
Indeed, if being a commander in wartime is one of the hardest jobs in the world, being the commander of a MNF embarked on an international military operation must be one of the most difficult endeavours known to humankind.
*This blog is an excerpt taken from Dr Regeena Kingsley’s original doctoral research in Defence & Strategic Studies (2014) entitled: “Fighting against Allies: An Examination of “National Caveats” within the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Campaign in Afghanistan & their Impact on ISAF Operational Effectiveness, 2002-2012”.
Dr Kingsley’s full Thesis and its accompanying volume of Appendices can be viewed and downloaded from Massey University’s official website here: http://mro.massey.ac.nz/xmlui/handle/10179/6984
Endnotes
[1] R.W. Glenn, ‘No More Principles of War?’, Parameters, (Spring) 1998, p. 10, http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/parameters/98spring/glenn.htm, (accessed 24 June 2010).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] G.S. Corn, ‘Multi-National Operations, Unity of Effort, and the Law of Armed Conflict’, Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research (HPCR) Harvard University, Working Paper Series: International Humanitarian Law and Contemporary Conflicts, p. 2, http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/84B588812CF91A754925762E00194C41-Harvard_May2009.pdf, (accessed May 14, 2010).
[5] T.J. Pudas, ‘Preparing Future Coalition Commanders’, Joint Forces Quarterly (JFQ), (Winter) 1993-1994, p. 43, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA528835, (accessed 25 June 2013).
[6] U.S. Department of Defense (U.S. DoD), The Dictionary of Military Terms, Joint Pub 1-02, New York, Skyhorse Publishing, 2009, p. 360.
[7] R. Lane (MAJGEN). ‘The Command, Leadership and Management Challenges of Contemporary Multinational Command’, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Journal, vol. 151, 2006, pp. 30-34.
[8] L. L. Marich (LTCOL), ‘Enhancing Command and Control in Multinational Operations’, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, 2002, p. 12, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA404313 (accessed May 14, 2010); Corn, op. cit. p. 2.
[9] Marich, ibid., p. 13.
[10] Marich, ibid., pp. 13-14.