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.
#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
#13 National Commanders: Caveat Mediators
#13 National Commanders: Caveat Mediators – Dr Regeena Kingsley In previous blogs it has been explained that Rules of Engagement (ROE) are instructions for the use of force by military forces, and that these instructions or rules relate to two specific issues – self-defence and mission accomplishment. With regard to self-defence, when individuals, groups of individuals, or an armed force are declared Enemy, it is permissible for force to be used as a matter of course and offensive action to take place. The Enemy force may be attacked, at the discretion and judgment of the military commander,
#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
#3 National Caveats: Potential to Constrain the Full Spectrum of Military Personnel & Operations
#3 National Caveats: Potential to Constrain the Full Spectrum of Military Personnel & Operations – Dr Regeena Kingsley Constraining Military & Civilian Personnel National caveats may be imposed on national deployments of military armed forces across all the Services – Army, Air Force and Navy as well as Special Operations Forces (SOFs) and Intelligence – and can consequently apply to ground, air, sea, SOF and Intelligence personnel and operations, regardless of their diverse geographic and operational environments.
#2 What are “National Caveats”?
#2 What are “National Caveats”? – Dr Regeena Kingsley A Definition National caveats can be defined as national restrictions or constraints imposed by political decision-makers on national armed forces to constrict the actions of armed forces deployed to multinational security operations. In other words, they are binding instructions enjoined on military forces by civilian government officials which clearly limit or restrict what the military can do on behalf of the nation during a conflict.
#1 Introduction: The Problem of “National Caveats” within Multinational Operations
The desirability of fighting wars in concert with allies, and yet the difficulty of doing so unitedly, effectively and successfully, is not a new idea. Indeed, the leading champion of the Second World War against the expansionist Axis powers from 1939-45, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, once commented that there was only one thing worse than fighting with allies – and that was to fight alone without them.
In the modern era, however, the difficulty of allied multinational warfare has reached new, unprecedented and alarming proportions. This is especially the case given the confusing maze of constraining politico-military “red-tape,” which is increasingly imposed by national governments on the armed forces they have contributed to multinational security campaigns, and which national forces are now frequently obliged to interpret and negotiate daily in the course of executing operational missions in the midst of an already friction-fraught war-zone. This red tape is comprised of restrictive politico-military Rules of Engagement, or more specifically, “national caveats” or “national exemptions”.
This blog will introduce this modern problem of allied national caveats, occurring within Multinational Operations (MNOs) that have been prosecuted either: (1) in the interest of defending national, regional or global security; or (2) as an international “humanitarian intervention” peace-enforcement or peace-keeping operation, conducted in the interest of protecting the civilian population of an ethnic or multi-ethnic nation from severe government abuse including the commission of globally illegal acts of genocide, crimes against civilian humanity, and/or ethnic cleansing.
The blog will: first, outline what national caveats are; second, discuss the growing “norm” for government to impose caveat constraints on their armed forces since the end of the Cold War in 1991; third, explain the problem of secrecy as an obstacle to rigorous academic examination and analysis of the problematic caveat issue in multinational security operations; fourth, describe the caveat turning-point that occurred during the course of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Operation in Afghanistan against terrorist forces between 2001-2021; and finally, introduce my own doctoral research and analysis on this crucial issue, and outline the overall aim of the research published on this website – Military Caveats.