#38 ISAF National Caveats in Afghanistan: Summary of Research Findings & Future Implications

“Be sure your sins will find you out.” These are the full findings and conclusions of my doctoral research that assessed the effort by the world’s Free Democracies to protect and build the new Democratic State of Afghanistan, and simultaneously counter and neutralise Islamist Terror Forces, in the ground-zero GWOT battleground of Afghanistan. The PhD research in the domain of Defence & Strategic Studies was the first, in-depth, academic examination of the classified and sensitive issue of politico-military ‘national caveats’ (ROE constraints or government ‘reins’ on military forces) and their effects on allied multinational security operations. It focused on: (1) the extent of the “caveat problem” in the NATO-led ISAF mission in Afghanistan; and (2) the tangible impact of these ISAF national caveats on the ISAF’s prosecution of security operations and the overall operational effectiveness of the entire counter-insurgency mission to secure and stabilise Afghanistan.

As this blog will show, this ground-breaking research, drawing from multiple primary and secondary sources including the once-classified U.S. diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks, has exposed the critical politico-military problem of ‘national caveats’ in modern multinational warfare. In short, national caveats have undermined, eroded, countered, crippled, sabotaged and needlessly elongated the international effort made by many of the world’s leading Free Democracies to effectively and successfully wage war against Islamic Extremists in Afghanistan, in defence of their own national security as well as in protection and support of their own fundamental, cherished, and collective beliefs and values. In this way, these government national constraints – that have been deliberately and repeatedly imposed on national military forces by NATO and Partner nations contributing forces to the ISAF mission from 2001-2014 – have actually acted as guarantors of ‘disunity of effort’ and ‘operational ineffectiveness’. These caveat ‘flies’ in the ISAF ointment have led to widespread and repeated failures at the PRT, Regional Command sector, Operational, and Strategic level – delaying, eroding and even halting progress across every pillar of the COIN strategy, and frustrating both the key objectives and the overall aim of the entire mission.

An unending ‘Cycle of Caveat Ineffectiveness’ has existed for the duration of the mission. Lack of political will and resolute commitment at the highest political levels in European and global Capitals – as plainly evidenced by the pervasive, continuous and widespread imposition of risk-averse and self-protecting national caveats on military forces – leads to disunity of purpose and effort, handicapped or anaemic security and combat forces and operations, security disasters, unwilling rescuers or reinforcement among allies, increased military and civilian casualties, slowed progress, loss of native support, loss of time, and unwise desperate measures – which all work together to decrease political will and commitment in international Capitals even further. In other words, national caveat constraints are both a symptom of disunity among allies and a recipe for failure in every multinational or allied security campaign in which they are present.

The research findings also hold grave implications for: Multinational Operations (MNOs) generally; the Democratic State of Afghanistan and the Global War on Terror (GWOT); the NATO Collective-Security Organisation in North America and Europe; and for the large and critical ‘Caveat Gap’ that exists in academic research and scholarship in the domains of both Defence & Strategic Studies and Political Science & International Relations on the serious and extremely negative role, impact, and effects of national caveat ‘ROE red-tape’ within important security operations conducted in the interest of securing national, regional and/or global security.

However, overall, two conclusions are very clear – as the long NATO-led mission in Afghanistan has plainly shown, in the most painful way, and in the midst of the most critical of wars waged to protect and safeguard national, regional and global security worldwide. NATO today is in fact an obese, heavy, unwilling, and clumsy, fraud of a fighting machine for the wars of the 21st century. And most of the Free Democracies of the world have lost their faith, will, heart and stomach to fight and die for the causes they say they most believe in, stand for, and prize.

#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?

#33 The Problem of “National Caveats” in NATO Operations around the World, 1996-2016

This blog will examine more closely NATO’s history of national caveat imposition in NATO military operations. It will begin by providing 5 reasons for caveat imposition within NATO missions. It will subsequently outline the recurring habit of NATO nations to contribute caveat-constrained military forces to NATO missions around the world over two decades, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Libya and most notoriously in Afghanistan. It will next describe the crux of NATO’s “caveat problem”, and then describe the three, largest, negative, caveat effects that have continuously resulted from NATO caveat imposition, namely (1) divided and inflexible NATO forces; (2) a disunified Multinational Force incapable of performing fundamental tasks; and (3) inequality and uneven burden-sharing within each NATO Multinational Force. Lastly, I will offer some final thoughts on this important issue of national caveats within NATO missions, with reference to the purpose and future of the NATO Alliance in global security affairs.

#30 BACKGROUND – NATO’s Operational Plan (OPLAN) for ISAF Mission Success in Afghanistan, 2003-2014

#30 BACKGROUND   NATO’s Operational Plan (OPLAN) for ISAF Mission Success in Afghanistan, 2003-2014   – Dr Regeena Kingsley   * This blog is a revised 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.”   In the last blog, ‘#29 BACKGROUND – The NATO-led ISAF Operation in Afghanistan: Purpose, Mission, Characteristics, Genesis, Leadership & NATO Responsibility for Mission Success’, I provided an introduction to the International Security Assistance

Read More

#26 Time to Study National Caveats: The “Caveat Gap” in Academic Research

#26 Time to Study National Caveats: The “Caveat Gap” in Academic Research   – Dr Regeena Kingsley   * This blog is a revised 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.”   “There is a time to make peace, there is a time to make war.  It is even necessary, sometimes, to do both at the same time, but never by halves.”   « Il y a

Read More

#17 The Complexity of Diverse National ROE within Multinational Security Operations

#17 The Complexity of Diverse National ROE within Multinational Security Operations   – Dr Regeena Kingsley   In earlier blogs the vital concept of ‘unity of effort’ for effective multinational security campaigns was explored, in addition to the underlying structures of ‘unity of command’ and ‘cooperation, coordination and consensus’ (see blog “#7 The Fundamental Principle of “Unity of Effort” in Multinational Operations” and “#8 The “Unity of Effort Model” – Vital for Success in Multinational Operations”).   U.S. General of the Army (GA) Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander over more than one million allied forces in both the

Read More