Political dimension of NATO operations
Dear Visitors,
Thank you for participating in the discussion on NATO’s core tasks. We would now like to steer the discussion towards the second theme: The political dimension of NATO’s operations.
What should NATO’s operations look like in the future?
How should NATO make decisions on its operations?
How should it work with other international organizations?
How can it define common strategies, and improve strategic communication?
The topic will be running for approximately two weeks, until the third discussion theme will be announced.
For now, please tailor your contributions towards this topic. It will help us in feeding your input into the expert deliberations on the new Strategic Concept.
We are keen to hear your thoughts and ideas on this new theme.
- Moderator's blog
- Add new comment
Comments
1. Alliance Operations, if not collective defence of the Alliance, should only be at the request of the UN and approved unanimously by the nations at the political level prior to any commitment.
2. As now, for collective defence, with an Article as "trigger"; otherwise, by prior unanimous agreement or at least a majority of the nations. But what would a "majority" consist of? The bigger contributors to the Alliance would need to have (demand?)more votes than the lesser contributors. This would lead to a partnership of unequals - not necessarily a bad thing, it would nevertheless require unanimous agreement to the parameters of the relative weightings and of pre-agreed commitment. The EU has failed to achieve this sort of voting arrangement, the prospects of the Alliance achieving it look slim indeed.
3. If it is considered necessary to work with other international organisations e.g. the UN, the rules of engagement with those "other international organisations" should be defined and agreed unanimously. Given this prior agreement, authority to work with those organisations could be delegated to appropriate strategic and operational levels in the Alliance.
4. Common strategies may be defined by similar methodology to that applied to defining the strategic concept with participation, in this case, of NATO's strategic operational command. Strategic communication could be improved by unanimous acceptance of a (the new)strategic concept, by definition and agreement to the strategic responses of each nation and collective provision of the necessary means of communication wherew these means presently do not exist.
From the above, any further expansion of the Alliance would seem counter productive.
However, if further expansion is to be made then streamlined processes, possibly triggered by unanimously agreed, a priori Articles would be necessary to ensure that timely decision making at the strategic level could be made - but what are the chances of that?
NATO should act as 1 and allow suggestions and advice from alliance members and perhaps the UN. Should NATO send troops to Congo and Darfur? Yes but only if deemed necessary by alliance members. Surely NATO can provide training and logistical support but ground troops should be reserved for only high priority operations such as Afghanistan.
In my opinion NATOs strategic vision should be simple: To meet the challenges of tha age of complex warfare, build a more intelligent warfighting organisation.
It should strive to insure an orgnaisational transition that reflects the external environment, and the type of conflicts we will face in the 3rd Millenium, complex, asymetric, irregular...call it what you may. Including understanding the role of a networked world of information sharing. This might include filling two 'old shoes' with two new thumbs.
I am not for a comprehensive approach that politically hamstrings NATOs unique position as the single most effective multi-national warfightng organisation in the world. NATO should not try to incorporate the management of standing non-military capacities/capabilities that are not politically connectable directly to the syhchronisation process belonging to a battlespace commander.
Kinetic effectiveness is a pre-requisite for non-kinetic actions, and therefore any new strategic vision should reaffirm NATOs primary role as an effective warfighting organisation - and strive to perfect this within the context of the new strategic environment. It is the military that must understand how to integrate the traditionally non-military dimensions into warfighitng first - to insure the integrity of kinetic effectiveness.Put an end to polemically disabled planning.
- Make our military planners and analysts more skilled through education and training at producing mutually reinforcing kinetic and non-kinetic plans and actions at all levels.
- Work to insure same quality of NATO personnel up and down and across the multi-national breadth so that a Theatre plan is coherent across the board. They should have the same philospohy of warfare not necessarily same tactical and operational doctrine - just individually more responsive to their immediate environment in the pursuit of commanders intent.
- Other actors/partners are needed but organised on an ad hoc basis with willing partners while always insuring commanders intent and timliness for planning remain intact. In this manner NATO will become a agile military organisation adaptable do different degrees of assymetry.
- Network thinking (human and technologically) should be in the fundamental education of all our military personnel. Give them a 'mobile phone' and a rifle.
- Operations are intelligence enabled and commander driven. Strive to flatline information sharing/knowledge development/ and integration of classified and unclassified intelligence - exploiting chat, posting, for networked reachback. Again - put an end to polemically disabled planning.
- Absolutes such as victory or defeat are no longer applicable - build a NATO capable of battlespace ownership until the politicians sort it out.
Thx - I can sleep soundly now:)
Secretary General Rasmussen:
Carl von Clausewitz, the author from "On War" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz once said: ""War is merely a continuation of politics." His famous line is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. But what does that mean for NATO politics? It's not very easy:
There are at this time 28 NATO members – some more countries want to join the NATO. Nobody can say that all of these countries really have the same political or strategic interests – some of these interests are public visible, some not on the first view. To get something like a "umbrella" for the new NATO politics there should be common interests between the members with an overlapping between 60 % to 80% . These common interests have to be clearly communicated, discussed, rated, weighted and fixed in a NATO competence team. The team should be a group of military and civil members with highly interdisciplinary thinking skills – both understanding military and civil thinking. The joint result - from 28 countries - must be compressed visible on one single coloured sheet of paper. Such an high structured information compression analysis is possible.
To come to the points:
1. What should NATO’s operations look like in the future?
The future NATO operations depend on the result of the compression analysis mentioned before. It should clearly show
a) which member is willing or not willing to support some(special) NATO Ops, what means the grade of commitment to NATO, which may depend from the political situation in each member country,
b) which member has not (yet) the technical resources to support NATO OPs,
c) which member has not (yet) the human resources (skills) to support NATO Ops,
d) interdependences on the reservists structure - skills and availability - in each member country.
2. How should NATO make decisions on its operations?
Decisions on operations depend on the result of (1) and short term, middle term and long term analysis on national and international political developments and trends. It is known that many information in each of the 28 member countries is available, but is kept confidential / secret in each member country - from several reasons. This makes some analysis, plannings and decisions for NATO not very efficient. As many information is open source information (TV, radio, newspaper and internet) intelligence services take about 70% to 90% from open source (OSINT) NATO should re-think to set up a NEW (own) intelligence service to skip the unsuficcient information interchange between the 28 members. Making decisions today means to have the right information available at high speed at the right time – if neceassary 24/7.
3. How should it work with other international organizations?
To that point I had talks some weeks ago. I will keep it short:
a) In areas of NATO OPs communication between NATO, other GOs and NGOs must be improved. Single point of contacts (SPOC) must be communicated timely.
b) For smaller organizations each NATO member should establish a point of contact (POC) in the home country. That POC communicates with HQ NATO and manages the contact.
c) Large international organizations should have a POC direct with HQ NATO.
The interests of the international organizations should be integrated into the political situation as in (1) and also taken for a common strategy planning on the different time slices (short-, middle- and long term planning).
4. How can it define common strategies, and improve strategic communication?
The information compression analysis mentioned above is necessary to find and define the common strategy. Without doing that a common strategy cannot set up – it would become just a "political discussing around" – not target oriented, wasting time. The same with strategic communication: Pointing out what is for one member country "strategic" and the other member country "non-strategic" is one part of the homework of the NATO members – it is one of the most important steps to be done first, high structured, too.
Thank you.
Ralf R. Zielonka (Maj.,Res., GAR)
I will be brief. NATO is correctly transitioning from a warfighter to a security provider. The alliance powers have almost no common strategic goal which would allow a future role for NATO in a wartime scenario.
In the future NATO needs to focus on modeling future security needs and gauging capabilities from its constituent member's services.
As to cohesion or functionality with other international organizations I can not off the top of my head think of any which can funtion in a security role alongside NATO. UN forces are notorious for ineffectiveness in actual strategic conflict zones. Minor NGOs are not relevant to NATO operations in th grand scale. And finally other intelligence and military organizations are already at NATO's disposal in whatever capacity they choose to be.
My only disagreement with the phrasing of this question is in NATO's ambition to craft a common agenda or strategy. That is a bit wishful. There is too great a distance between the players. The best NATO can do is try to force members to choose positions in relation to issues and choose them in some clear fashion. NATO has always been militarily only a gathering of the willing. The future will be no different.
Thank you for taking the time to encourage feedback and thank you for reading all of my comments.
Dear friends,
Previous Strategic Concepts were able to provide doctrinal support for the challenges of the nineties but the sitution have changed after september 11. We are confronting a very difficult situation in Afganistan (and of course in Pakistan) and we have many casualties in our forces. When you are in front of mortal danger you need to have behind a clear understanding of the organization your are fighting for. For that reason we (NATO allies) need to defined our organization, rules, compromises etc in a clear manner in order to assure cohesiviness and common perception of the reasons why we are doing something. The Treaty of Washington is still valid but the new Strategic Concept should be the "Bible" of NATO and give an overall understanding of our orgainzation and the way it funtions and then give also an updated Strategic vision and to cover the areas that were already present in the SC of 1999.
Thank you
Federico V. Yaniz
General de Aviación (R)
Member of the Board of ATA-Spain
velascoyf@hotmail.com
Nato must continue to be an instrument of collective military action and security cooperation, however, never forget the civil component (C.E.P.).
The future operations will be more dominated by the political factor. The operations will be monitored by the international public opinion and organisations judging observance of the international rules by the sides of conflicts. To an increasing degree, the Alliance will also be under pressure to gain public support for its military actions and to achieve swift success and end conflicts. This will force the alliance to carry out the future operations in a fast and efficacious manner.
The growing necessity for out-of-area missions indicates a clear need to develop a new process to permit participation under NATO auspices by willing allies in such operations.
The NATO Allies confirmed at the Riga Summit what they have recognized in practice since the early 1990s: other organizations have capabilities and mandates that NATO lacks to achieve the objectives it shares with its international partners. The three organizations with which NATO has worked most closely are the United Nations, the European Union, and the European Cooperation Security Organization, and must to continue to work with them.
Thank you.
Best Regards
Luis
(Security Consultant and Defense Auditor)
Mihail Grigorov,
Editor in the “Military and National Security” division of “Bulgarian Army” newspaper
In the future NATO must combine military strength with the broader political debate. NATO should be concerned with the prevention of conflicts. Be ready and have the technological opportunity for immediate response to new security challenges such as cyber attacks. NATO’s operations have become a symbol of human justice. It is especially important to keep strong the faith of people in NATO member countries as a key factor for common security. Therefore NATO must work with the media. To get deeper the cooperation with other organizations - the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Council of Europe, the United Nations. NATO should be an environment for strategic thinking and to engage actively with NGOs through the ATA. Euro-Atlantic ideas should become a leading modern political theory advocating peace and justice, appealing to young people and the largest parts of the population of the planet. Perhaps decisions must rank in order to be effective. Maybe, if immediate action is required, decisions must be made by fewer people. If the issues are strategic decisions will be taken by consensus. NATO operations must have a military, social and cultural nature.
Dear friends,
As i mentioned in my previous contribution, the most important thing when taking risks (in operations you always do take risks) is to know why you are taking them and which is behind the orders you are receiving. We all know that decisions in NATO are taken collectively but we also know that in the field the line of command has to be clear cut and any combatant has the right to know who is directly in charge of the operation. To make decisions on which operations NATO troops are going to partipate is a resposibility of NAC with the advise of the Military Committee and Major NATO Commanders. Once the decision to participate is made the line of command should be established in a clear manner and from that moment the decisions in the field should be taken by the Commander of the Operaton always with respect of the rules of engagement established by the relevant NATO Command and approved by NAC.
Federico V. Yaniz
General de Aviación (R) y periodista
Much appreciated, John. You write of NATO cooperation with the United Nations. The United Nations was important to the Alliance’s founders, and it is mentioned no less than six times in the North Atlantic Treaty. You can read more on our Topic Page devoted to UN-NATO relations:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50321.htm
Thanks again.
Thank you, Kevin! You mentioned the Congo and Darfur in your response, so you may be interested in this Topic Page on NATO assistance to the African Union:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_8191.htm
Feel free to give us your thoughts.
Your comments are much appreciated, William. We’re certainly glad to have helped you sleep soundly, as well.
Thank you, Ralf, for your thoughtful and interesting comments. You may be inclined to have a look at our recently released Online Videos, if you have not seen them already. You can find them here:
http://www.60yearsnato.info/
Hello Tucker, thanks for your comments. There is an argument that cooperation between NATO and other international and inter-governmental organizations, including NGOs, maybe be necessary for the provision of security in the long run. Click on the Topic Page for the Comprehensive Approach, posted above as a response to Luis, and let us know what you think.
Thank you, Luis, for your interesting comments. Public support is, as you mentioned, crucial for Alliance activities. You also mentioned the need for increased cooperation with other international and inter-governmental organizations, part of what we refer to as the “Comprehensive Approach”. More information can be found here:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_51633.htm
Thanks again, and don’t hesitate to forward your views.
We appreciate your thoughts, Frederico. Please feel free to advance other comments and questions.
Thanks again, Federico, for your comments!
Hello Mihail, thank you for your thoughtful comments. They echo some of the aspects of the "Comphrensive Approach". You might be interested to have a look at NATO's "Topic Page" on the Comprehensive Approach, if you have not done so already:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_51633.htm
Thanks again!
Gentlemen (Moderating Team), Thank you very much for your comment/support.
In additional my comment issued on September 25,2009,I inform:
Since the end of cold war and after September, 11th, NATO has projected security beyond its traditional area of responsability. NATO and European Union have identified the proliferation of Weapons Mass Destruction and the Terrorism Groups as today's key security threats, and for this, NATO and the European Union needs in the field, a very good intelligence cooperation , management cooperation and defence capabilities of non-proliferation policies.
By the other side, NATO and the European Union they should forget the Act Plan for 2005 on maritime surveillance, civil protection and air safety to enhance security and fight terrorism on Mediterranean (piracy).
In December 2003, the European Council established a Civil/Military strategic level planning of joint Civil/Military operations. The agreement also provided for a permanent European Union cell in SHAPE and a NATO liaison team at the European Union Military Staff.
NATO and the European Union needs to achieve priority objectives, one of them, the new concept of mobilization of the rapid reaction force and a new concept of Civil Emergency Planning.
Thank you, Gentlemen.
With my highest Respects and Best Regards
Luis
(Security Consultant and Defense Auditor)
Dear all,
The world peace and security can not be achieved only by the use of military means. NATO shall continue conduct operations in problematic areas such as the Middle East and the Balkans. But we all have to observe the fact that we live in a new time which requires new tactical and strategic approaches. Urgent reaction at the event of crisis situation is absolutely necessary and NATO shall continue making efforts in this direction. But this still remains a reaction post factum; prevention and prediction of possible threads and conflicts are things the organization shall concentrate more in the future. Concentrating only on the successive reaction means that organization is already a step behind the possible thread, which is absolutely unacceptable. Non-military means are crucial because there are always non-military issues standing behind threads such as terrorism. The effective counteraction shall take this into consideration and expand the methods for influence and reactions, otherwise the problem will be solved only for a short-term period and it will arise again in the future. Prediction, analyzing and searching for effective solutions by all means are the only effective approach for handling situations.
Governments and media shall play bigger role in the future. Media is one of the strongest powers which can be extremely effective for accomplishment of tasks and conduct of psychological and military operations. Governments shall realize the need of stronger cooperation for the successful fight against terrorism and other threads for the security and peace. The alliance in the name of achieving these goals and the belief in them are crucial, because the biggest power of terrorist organizations are their cohesion, selflessness and the strong believe in their mission. This is something that can not be overcome if there isn’t strong cohesion between governments and readiness for real cooperation in the fight for world peace and security.
The extension of NATO’s core tasks and authorities shall give more guarantees for the members as they shall be reassured to have the right to participate actively and influence the decision-making process for future operation. Otherwise the syndrome of the small countries may affect negatively to the real cohesion and alliance.
NATO shall extend its cooperation with other international organizations. The type of cooperation can be defined according to the current tasks and operations that shall be conducted. Conduction of mutual operations may be effective and more economical approach. Making an organization part of a mutual project, entrust with responsibility and underlining the importance of its role have always been good motivations for professional and well organized work.
As a conclusion, strategic communication and effective reaction can be improved only by cohesion, mutual work and realizing that counteraction of threads requires close cooperation and various methods for reaction and prevention, not only military, but non-military also, with the active participation of the governments, other international organizations and the media.
Thank you!
Best Regards,
Iliana Panayotova
Dear Luis,
Thank you for your thoughts. You mention the need for a “new concept of Civil Emergency Planning.” NATO does have a vigorous Civil Emergency Planning programme, including an operations tool at the disposal of the Alliance – the Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre (EADRCC). Please feel free to read more about Civil Emergency Planning and the EADRCC at the following Topics Pages:
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49158.htm
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52057.htm
Best Regards,
The Moderating Team
Thank you for following up on my comment. I read the linked text from your response to Luis and the Comprehensive Approach is logical and clear. My opinion on the substance of the Comprehensive Approach is that it is clear evidence of NATO's advanced capability for functioning in the stratosphere of international relations but empty of anything else. Simply restating the elements of the Comprehensive Approach while frittering away actual warfighting resources and being ineffectual at transitioning to security building is a tough place to be stuck. The Comprehensive Approach needs more detail. Goals without a good plan to achieve them are difficult to reach. Spelling out the details and communicating them will actually serve to bring the goals nearer to attainment.
Simply take every vague point of the Comprehensive Approach and flesh it out. It does not even matter if nobody agrees on what the flesh should look like simply do it and then redo it to address concerns.
I apologize for my complaining attitude but I am more and more frustrated when I think about the difference between what NATO can accomplish and what it actually does accomplish.
Gentlemen (Moderating Team)
Thank you very much for your links about Civil Emergency Planning.
After a careful reading of the two links that you provided to me, please allow me, but, however, I would like to know if STANAG 2040 was revised in the scope of aero medics evacuation, taking into consideration the new type of commercial aircrafts and the use of litters in those aircrafts.
My Respects and Best Regards
Luis
Hello Tucker, thank you for your comments.
You might keep in mind that our Topic Page on the Comprehensive Approach is not and cannot be a detailed explanation of Alliance activities in this regard. The actual on-the-ground implementation of the Comprehensive Approach, in all its military and political dimensions, is extraordinarily complex, but you should be aware that the Approach is being implemented although work remains to be done.
You write that "goals without a good plan to achieve them are difficult to reach." We cannot agree more. In the spirit of further developing a "good plan", then, we hope that you will continue contributing to our public dialogue on the Strategic Concept.
Best regards
The Moderating Team
Hello Luis, thanks for your question.
We will look around in-house to see if we can find an answer for you regarding STANAG 2040.
Best regards,
The Moderating Team
Couldent agree more and I cant emferzi this enough
PSYOPS is at the buttom of the pool here....
We need the standard mill setup...but we also need the planning boys to think of themselves as child in front of a box of toy building blogs, you might need to go look at how a creative process is made in say fashion, design (lego would be a good start)commercial etc
You also need to have most of the influential university degrees present in that planning(evaluation of opportunities) process tht in turn also need to translate into the fact that the language and process not always live up to the finer inerworkings of top officials so you need a guy at the top that needs to understand that he Whant the "OD NUTJOBS" of the varius MIL/civilian both low and high
He needs to know how to make them work and he needs to shield them from the outer more polite tuned innerworking of a "normal" INT Staff. cuz if you get the right boys for this job...you'l need 2/ in command just to keep the complaints of your doorstep
On the InTEL side i will leave you with a link and my tougts on my FB
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/
Is a Facebook kinda thing the answer to this one? you know go up and down and sideways in the organisation? also to other organisations...also i think the force of this guy was "old boys network aka interdepartmental training? aka "tactical trainers" so that the "johns" would know there way thrue the red tape......... this goes ...to the INTEL side of things on that network you also need the bosses as the QB but in a monitoring way...looking for patterns both at strategic level and tactical no? as to the ambassedors side of things...i kinda like hard evidence cuz im getting a feel here that this was not just a turff war but also some legit conserns or interest that was fumbeled no? kinda like emtywheel...everybody pitch in no matter what there degree or position is in the system...some isues interest you some dont same as fansides on FB...LOOK at how a a layerfirm got burned in "SUPERKONJUNKTION" just by using twitter.............. i think that real secrets are a thing of the past with these instruments we migth just as well face it and turn it in to a solution and a powerfull weapon...but how do we maintain operationel security? could the answer be several layers of FB/twit? aka like the uncassified is public.....the next is social kiced back all in tjatter kind of thing....the next one are for privates... and as you move up its a closed downwards but sideway and upwards open... and the QB needs there own.......
Thanx again for letting us grunts have a say...mucho appreciated
Dear Readers,
This forum is such a new online medium in the new N.A.T.O.-policy that maybe
it could be useful to keep it online. Surely also after the new strategic concept. "It is better to write and read than to go to war."
In an ideal world, N.A.T.O. would be fully integrated in all global and local
security issues - this in full cooperation with United Nations
and the UN-divisions such as Unesco, Unicef,...
Of course the privacy issue is one of the new topics there are or will be in security policy..
--
About Operations :
It also would also be nice to hear the opinions of ( young non-extreme )
Afghans about how they would like their country becomes.
This could be part of the democratic process that is
going on there. Give those people a voice !
Thank you !
Best Regards,
Bert V.H.
"You might keep in mind that our Topic Page on the Comprehensive Approach is not and cannot be a detailed explanation of Alliance activities in this regard."
In the words of the great Jedi master Yoda: "That is why you fail."
Spell it out in great detail and the awesome might of the free peoples of the world will accomplish the mission for you. After all what are NGO's?
Put down in writing the detailed explanation. At least write out some achievable goals. You can probably see how hungry we all are for a mission that is tangible.
I thank you so much for your willingness to ask for public comment. I feel very privileged to contribute. Good luck to you all and I wish you all the best for the future.
Thanks, Tucker!