WAR ON TERROR: OEF APPENDIX – List of Known National Caveats Imposed by OEF TCNs on National Armed Forces Deployed to Afghanistan, 2001-2012

This list displays the ‘national caveat’ limitation and prohibition rules known to have been imposed on national security forces, contributed and deployed to Afghanistan to operate as part of the U.S.-led Operational Enduring Freedom (OEF) mission, by the governments of OEF Troop Contributing Nations (TCNs) Germany, Canada, Spain and Turkey.

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: ‘Triumphs after Trials’ Progress Report, 2001-2021

A chronological table displaying the Free Democracies’ failures, successes and stalemates in the global campaign against Islamic Extremist terrorism (the ungodly and cowardly mass-murder and terrorisation of innocent civilians for politico-religious aims), otherwise known as the Global War on Terror(ists) (GWOT), ever since the world-changing, Afghanistan-based, Al-Qaeda terror attack on the American homeland and its native and foreign-born citizens, more than two decades ago, on 11 September 2001.

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 9 – Table Displaying Caveats Imposed by ISAF TCNs on Major and Minor Combat Manoeuvre Units (CMUs), 2006-2012

This dire, combat-capability table displays the Major (700+) and Minor (550-699) ISAF Combat Manoeuvre Units (CMUs), contributed by NATO-nation and Partner-nation States to the ISAF Security Assistance mission in Afghanistan, that were operating under national caveat constraints in their combat and security operations between June 2006 – December 2012. Among these caveats were: reconnaissance & surveillance caveats; intelligence-sharing caveats; combat caveats; combat-support caveats; counter-terror caveats; counter-insurgent caveats; counter-narcotics caveats; ISAF Allies caveats; ANSF caveats; and even MEDEVAC caveats (refer to ISAF Appendices 7(a), 7(b), 8(a) and 8(b) below or on the ‘APPENDICES’ page). The table 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.

#36 The Art of Government: Military Servants, Political Masters, ‘The People’ & the Purpose of the Military

What is the main purpose of the military? To deter, fight and win wars both at home and abroad. As I have already outlined in the previous two blogs, Rules of Engagement (ROE) are the critical lynchpin, or key interconnecting devices, between the two separate and different political and military spheres of a nation during any armed conflict. ROE are binding political-military-legal orders given to national military forces by civilian national government officials, which clearly limit or restrict what the military can do on behalf of the nation, and in the name of the government, while actively deployed in a theatre of armed conflict. National militaries are subordinate to and accountable to obey these instructions or commands of their national civilian government because, in most countries of the world, national armed forces are the military servants of the civilian masters in government, who in turn are also themselves the temporary chosen representatives and servants of their citizen nation of people. As military servants of elected governments, then, and because of the changing nature and short-term tenure of governments comprised of various and often rival political parties and ideologies, especially in liberal democratic countries, national armed forces must officially be strictly apolitical and non-partisan: loyal to the Nation-State, the National Constitution, the national government, and the nation of people they exist to protect.

This blog will discuss these critical issues, and then examine the role of the military in each State today in the modern world. It will subsequently discuss the primary purpose of the military in every Nation-State, as well as the three kinds of wars national militaries usually engage in historically and today – (1) war at home to protect the sovereign State and the population of the nation; (2) war abroad in defence of critical national security interests and concerns; and (3) war abroad to defend foundational and core principles, values and beliefs.

#39 Farewell Fallen Friend: Democratic Afghan Republic, 2001-2021

The tricolour flag, leaders, military personnel, and civilian citizens of a dead democratic country, the Democratic Afghan Republic, a young country abandoned to die by the American President Joe Biden. This was a needless abandonment and death, and a political, strategic and national tragedy, with profoundly dire security consequences in the global struggle against Islamic Extremist terrorism (the ungodly and cowardly mass-murder and terrorisation of innocent civilians for politico-religious aims). The Democrat Biden-Harris Administration was assisted in this singularly unwise withdrawal from Democratic Afghanistan by collectively complicit and complacent European allies and leading intergovernmental organisations around the world including NATO and the UN, in their mutually shared – if short-sighted – preoccupation and desire for ‘a fast and final end’ to the long but vital Afghan War against terror forces in Central-South Asia.

#37 Modern Noble Soldier

Good and strong men live by good and strong deeds. God bless the soldier at arms – the precious, brave, few.