The following two blogs #41 and #42 will now together further elaborate on the ISAF’s Caveat Crisis in Afghanistan, by providing a description of the way in which the mission’s caveat problem developed over the course of the Security Assistance mission, increasing in both scope and severity as the operation progressed through the four fundamental phases of NATO’s Operational Plan (OPLAN) for the mission. Indeed, limitation and ban rules in the Rules of Engagement (ROE) of ISAF national contingents were actively and obstructively present during all five of the OPLAN’s phases, from the very genesis of the ISAF operation in December 2001 until its complete termination in December 2014. These included the phases of: I) Assessment and Preparation; II) Geographic Expansion; III) Stabilisation; IV) Transition; and lastly V) Redeployment. These blogs will provide a concise overview of the diverse difficulties posed by these national caveat restrictions on the ISAF Force during each of these operational phases, in order to illustrate how the issue of heavy caveat imposition spread like a cancer, first politically in the Coalition of the Willing, and then operationally and tangibly across the mission in terms of both geography and time, with the caveat issue growing larger and generating more and more alarm in military and political quarters with the progression of each successive NATO-led phase until the final termination of the mission.
WAR ON TERROR: ISAF APPENDIX 10(b) – List of National Caveats Imposed on Armed Forces by the 8 NATO “Lead Nations” of ISAF Regional Commands in Afghanistan, 2002-2012
This list displays the known national caveat ROE constraints (of 21 caveat categories of rules), that were imposed by successive governments of the 8 NATO Lead Nations in the ISAF mission, in order to constrain the movements, activities, operations, and fighting combat capabilities of their own national forces in Afghanistan – and this despite being vested with heavy leadership command responsibilities for security and stability in their respective ISAF Regional Command sectors. These caveats were all in force, at one time or another, or even continuously over long periods of time amounting to many years, on ISAF Lead Nation security and stability forces, over the course of ten years of conventional and counter-insurgency war waged against anti-democracy terrorists and insurgents between 2002-2012. It was created based on the caveat information I gathered and compiled during the course of my doctoral research.
This PhD research in the academic domain of Defence & Strategic Studies, and undertaken over a period of 7 years from 2008-2014, was the first, in-depth, academic examination of the issue of ‘national caveats’ and their effects within multinational security operations. The research focused on the multinational NATO-led ISAF campaign in Afghanistan, and examined and analysed the extent and tangible impact of ISAF national caveats on ‘unity of effort’ and ‘operational effectiveness’ within the ISAF COIN mission, over the period of ten years from 2002-2012.
WAR ON TERROR: ISAF APPENDIX 10(a) – Table Displaying Caveat-Free or Caveat-Fettered Forces of the 8 NATO/ISAF Lead Nations during 6 Crucial COIN Years, 2007-2012
This alarming table, displaying the overall total numbers of caveat-fettered and caveat-free forces contributed by NATO’s 8 Lead Nations in the ISAF security and stability mission, during the Afghan mission’s critical years after the 2006 Taliban Resurgence between January 2007-December 2012, was created based on the caveat information I gathered and compiled during the course of my doctoral research.
This PhD research in the academic domain of Defence & Strategic Studies, and undertaken over a period of 7 years from 2008-2014, was the first, in-depth, academic examination of the issue of ‘national caveats’ and their effects within multinational security operations. The research focused on the multinational NATO-led ISAF campaign in Afghanistan, and examined and analysed the extent and tangible impact of ISAF national caveats on ‘unity of effort’ and ‘operational effectiveness’ within the ISAF COIN mission, over the period of ten years from 2002-2012.
WAR ON TERROR: ISAF APPENDIX 8(b) – List of Known National Caveats Imposed on ISAF Major Force Units by TCNs in Afghanistan, 2001-2012
This list, of known national caveats constraining 11 Major Force Units to the ISAF Security Assistance mission by Lead and Supporting ISAF coalition TCNs (NATO and Partner nations), was created based on the caveat information I gathered and compiled during the course of my doctoral research.
This PhD research in the academic domain of Defence & Strategic Studies, and undertaken over a period of 7 years from 2008-2014, was the first, in-depth, academic examination of the issue of ‘national caveats’ and their effects within multinational security operations. The research focused on the multinational NATO-led ISAF campaign in Afghanistan, and examined and analysed the extent and tangible impact of ISAF national caveats on ‘unity of effort’ and ‘operational effectiveness’ within the ISAF COIN mission, over the period of ten years from 2002-2012.
WAR ON TERROR: ISAF APPENDIX 8(a) – Table Displaying Known ISAF Major Force Units Constrained by TCNs with National Caveats, 2001-2012
This table, displaying the ISAF Major Force Units – contributed by Lead and Supporting ISAF coalition TCNs – that were known to have been constrained by national caveats during their operations in the Afghan theatre of war, was created based on the caveat information I gathered and compiled during the course of my doctoral research.
This PhD research in the academic domain of Defence & Strategic Studies, and undertaken over a period of 7 years from 2008-2014, was the first, in-depth, academic examination of the issue of ‘national caveats’ and their effects within multinational security operations. The research focused on the multinational NATO-led ISAF campaign in Afghanistan, and examined and analysed the extent and tangible impact of ISAF national caveats on ‘unity of effort’ and ‘operational effectiveness’ within the ISAF COIN mission, over the period of ten years from 2002-2012.
WAR ON TERROR: ISAF APPENDIX 7(b) – List of Known National Caveats by Category Imposed by ISAF TCNs on National Forces, December 2001- December 2012
A list of known national caveats within the ISAF Allied Force, arranged according to the 21 caveat categories found to be in existence and active during the ISAF mission from 2001-2014. Namely: Mission caveats; Theatre of Operations caveats; Geographic caveats; Regional caveats; Area of Operations (AO) caveats; Force Numbers-in-Theatre caveats; Command caveats; Weaponry & Lethal Force caveats; General Operations caveats; Ground Combat Operations caveats; Ground Security Operations caveats; Air Combat Operations caveats; Other Air Operations caveats; Time caveats; Weather caveats; Counter-Terrorism caveats; Counter-Narcotics caveats; ISAF Cooperation caveats; ANSF Cooperation caveats; PRT Security Operations caveats; and PRT Stability Operations caveats. The list was created based on the caveat information I gathered and compiled during the course of my doctoral research.
This PhD research in the academic domain of Defence & Strategic Studies, and undertaken over a period of 7 years from 2008-2014, was the first, in-depth, academic examination of the issue of ‘national caveats’ and their effects within multinational security operations. The research focused on the multinational NATO-led ISAF campaign in Afghanistan, and examined and analysed the extent and tangible impact of ISAF national caveats on ‘unity of effort’ and ‘operational effectiveness’ within the ISAF COIN mission, over the period of ten years from 2002-2012.
WAR ON TERROR: ISAF APPENDIX 7(a) – Table Displaying Known Caveat Categories Imposed by ISAF TCNs on National Forces, 2001-2012
A table, displaying the 21 categories of caveats found to be in existence and active in the ISAF mission from 2001-2014, and the Troop Contributing Nations (TCNs) found to be imposing caveats within these categories, between the years 2001-2012.
This PhD research in the academic domain of Defence & Strategic Studies, and undertaken over a period of 7 years from 2008-2014, was the first, in-depth, academic examination of the issue of ‘national caveats’ and their effects within multinational security operations. The research focused on the multinational NATO-led ISAF campaign in Afghanistan, and examined and analysed the extent and tangible impact of ISAF national caveats on ‘unity of effort’ and ‘operational effectiveness’ within the ISAF COIN mission, over the period of ten years from 2002-2012.
WAR ON TERROR: ISAF APPENDIX 6 – List of 215 Known National Caveats Imposed by ISAF TCNs in Afghanistan, 2001-2012
A list of 215 national caveats, ranging across 21 categories of politico-military caveat constraints amongst allied forces, known to have been imposed by the governments of NATO and Non-NATO Nation-States contributing military forces to operate as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in Afghanistan, over a period of more than a decade of war between the years 2001-2012. The list was created based on the caveat information I gathered and compiled during the course of my doctoral research.
This PhD research in the academic domain of Defence & Strategic Studies, and undertaken over a period of 7 years from 2008-2014, was the first, in-depth, academic examination of the issue of ‘national caveats’ and their effects within multinational security operations. The research focused on the multinational NATO-led ISAF campaign in Afghanistan, and examined and analysed the extent and tangible impact of ISAF national caveats on ‘unity of effort’ and ‘operational effectiveness’ within the ISAF COIN mission, over the period of ten years from 2002-2012.
#35 Crucial Questions on Rules Of Engagement (ROE): (Q2/3) Do Commanders Have Discretionary Authority to Change ROE?
This blog will address the second crucial question on Rules of Engagement (ROE), relating to deployed military commanders on operations: Are deployed military commanders given discretionary authority, by their civilian masters in government, to change or alter their lethal force instructions in any way, as they see fit, based on the conditions on the ground in theatre?
ROE will first be outlined as two classes of military orders or instructions issued to national armed forces deployed at home or abroad to act on behalf of the government and the nation of the State: these are (1) ‘offensive’ military orders for Mission Accomplishment (to achieve the military objectives towards attainment of the overall political aim) & (2) ‘defensive’ military orders for Self-Defence when encountering Enemy or Hostile opposition (intent and actions) during the course of their military operations. Next, I will discuss who has the power to change ROE, and describe the three differing degrees of ‘Discretionary Authority’ that governments tend to give to their military commanders in conflict theatres today, in the modern 21st century world of warfare. Subsequently, this real-world analysis will end with a discussion of the negative consequences of overly-constrained commanders in conflict theatres – which so often leads to ludicrous, illogical and tragic security situations and outcomes for fighting military personnel (and also defenceless local civilians) on operations, providing two such examples from warzones concerning New Zealand armed forces in East Timor during 2000 and Danish armed forces in Afghanistan during 2006. Finally, I will discuss this modern phenomenon of ‘Ridiculous ROE’ as the result of the significant and ever-abiding problem of the ‘political-military disconnect’ or ‘grey area’ of incomprehension and misunderstanding, that exists between the political masters in the political sphere and military commanders in the military sphere – once alluded to centuries ago, by the famous, Prussian, realist, military commander, veteran, theorist and philosopher, Karl von Clausewitz.
#34 Crucial Questions on Rules Of Engagement (ROE): (Q1/3) Are ROE Legally-Binding “Military Orders” or Merely Guidelines?
After more than 13 years of research on ROE instructions issued by governments to national military contingents deployed to operate as part of multinational security endeavours around the world, and especially the continuing existence and consistently negative effects of national caveat limitations and bans within these ROE, I will now attempt in the following to shine more light on this classified, sensitive, hazy, poorly-understood but critically important subject.
In particular, I will try to assist general understanding on this vital issue in military operations by answering, to the best of my knowledge, three basic and crucial questions as to the normative status and practices of nations with regard to ROE. This blog addresses the first crucial question: Are ROE legally-binding ‘military orders’ or are they merely ‘guidelines’ to military personnel?