#18 Caveats Endanger & Caveats Kill: National Caveats in UN Operations in Angola, Rwanda & Bosnia-Herzegovina – Dr Regeena Kingsley The last blog discussed the key choice facing all Multinational Operations (MNOs) operators of having either standardised or disparate Rules of Engagement (ROE) between national contingents operating within the mission (see blog “#17 The Complexity of Diverse National ROE within Multinational Security Operations”). It outlined, firstly, the various difficulties posed to attempts by security organisations to standardise ROE among the States contributing armed forces to an MNO, and secondly, the impact of diverse sets of national ROE on
#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
#16 The Practical Value of National Rules of Engagement: An Assessment
#16 The Practical Value of National Rules of Engagement: An Assessment – Dr Regeena Kingsley In previous blogs, I have discussed what Rules of Engagement (ROE) are, what kinds of instructions they contain, how ROE are formed for military operations, and how they are enforced and breaches punished (see blogs “#9 What are “Rules of Engagement”? Military Mandates & Instructions for the Use of Force”, “#10 Rules of Engagement & National Caveats: “Self-Defence” & “Mission Accomplishment” Instructions”, “#11 How are Rules of Engagement Formed for Military Operations?”, and “#12 The Binding Power of Rules of Engagement: Enforcement &
#15 Highly Classified: National Caveats & Government Secrecy (Official & Unofficial Caveat ROE)
#15 Highly Classified: National Caveats & Government Secrecy – Dr Regeena Kingsley The last blog discussed how an alarming, new, global norm has developed within contemporary multinational security operations. Since the early 1990s, nations have been increasingly imposing heavy and wide-ranging constraints on the forces they contribute to multinational security operations (see blog “#14 An Alarming New Norm: National Caveat Constraints in Multinational Operations”). The trend has become so strong in fact that today national caveats are considered to be ‘normal’ and the ‘common lot to varying degrees of all military operations conducted by NATO, the European Union
#14 An Alarming New Norm: National Caveat Constraints in Multinational Operations
#14 An Alarming New Norm: National Caveat Constraints in Multinational Operations – Dr Regeena Kingsley Routine imposition of national caveat constraints on national military contingents has developed as an increasingly common habit of nations today, whenever countries contribute forces to Multinational Operations (MNOs) authorised by the international community. This practice has continued regardless of whether the international security missions concerned have been conducted under the banner and command of an international organisation, such as the United Nations (UN), or a treaty-based military Alliance structure, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Caveat constraints have also been habitually
#10 Rules of Engagement & National Caveats: “Self-Defence” & “Mission Accomplishment” Instructions
#10 Rules of Engagement & National Caveats: “Self-Defence” & “Mission Accomplishment” Instructions – Dr Regeena Kingsley Rules of Engagement (ROE) contain specific instructions relating to the use of force. Indeed, they are defined by NATO as: ‘Directives issued by competent military authority which specify the circumstances and limitations under which forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered’.[1] ROE contain precise and classified prescriptions on exactly when (use of force) and how (degree of force) military armed forces may employ force against the Enemy while performing tasks towards stated mission objectives (see blog “#9 What
#9 What are “Rules of Engagement”? Military Mandates & Instructions for the Use of Force
#9 What are “Rules of Engagement”? Military Mandates & Instructions for the Use of Force – Dr Regeena Kingsley The imposition of restrictive rules on armed forces during wartime operations is not a new practice. Indeed, evidence of their use has been traced back as far as the Middle Ages, enshrined in the royal ‘Letters of Marque and Reprisal’ commissions issued to medieval knights in the fourteenth century, and found within similar commissions and charters given to privateers plundering foreign trade ships in the Elizabethan era of the sixteenth century.[1] The concept of Rules of Engagement (ROE) as
#8 The “Unity of Effort Model” & Multinational Commanders – Vital for Success in Multinational Operations
#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]
#7 The Fundamental Principle of “Unity of Effort” in Multinational Operations
#7 The Fundamental Principle of “Unity of Effort” in Multinational Operations – Dr Regeena Kingsley No-matter which command arrangement a Multinational Operation (MNO) assumes or what Command and Control (C²) system is imposed (see blog “#6 Managing Multinational Complexity – Command & Control (C²)“), the true effectiveness of the multinational enterprise will ultimately hinge on one factor: the unity of the actors in the effort towards achieving the common purpose of the operation. In military terminology this is known as unity of effort. Unity of Effort According to the U.S. Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms,
#6 Managing Multinational Complexity – Command & Control (C²)
#6 Managing Multinational Complexity – Command & Control (C²) – Dr Regeena Kingsley As stated previously, the conduct of multinational warfare is a very complex business. This complexity is inherent in every multinational security operation, being as it is, the activity of war (whether small- or full-scale), conducted by a temporarily-unified body, for a temporary purpose, that comprises a variety of different national actors via disparate military forces. Command and Control ‘Command and Control’ (C²) systems are crucial to successful management of this inherent complexity within MNOs. Indeed, according to Lieutenant Colonel (LTCOL) Lou Marich from the