VIRGINIA BEACH, Va.–Considering the future five years out, the emphasis will still be on coalitions, the NATO transformation commander said.
Commanders will not go on operations alone, but will fight alongside other nations and other organizations, French Air Force Gen. Stephane Abrial, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (ACT), recently said at the 2010 Joint Warfighting Conference here co sponsored by AFCEA International and the U.S. Naval Institute, in coordination with U.S. Joint Forces Command.
Looking at a five-year horizon is tricky, he said. While no one is afraid to make predictions for 2050, when they’ll be far from their current positions if they’re proven wrong, five years out can present a “tangible, if elusive picture,” he said.
For example, in 1987, no one predicted that by 1992 there would be no Warsaw Pact or Soviet Union. Or even five years back, who would have predicted a French commander of NATO ACT.
Considering the need to focus on today’s operations while not neglecting the future, Abrial shared some of his thoughts.
First, “coalitions will be the rule,” he said. While coalition work has long been difficult, it is now the default mode. Full French participation in NATO reflects this, he said.
Additionally, coalitions cannot be improvised, he said. “Coalition work should be prepared way upstream,” he said. A recent study in Afghanistan found that an established military alliance is likely to prove more effective than an ad hoc coalition. They are even more effective with common standards.
Coalition commanders will need political support, even though the price political leaders have had to pay at home has in some cases been considerable, since the public appetite for such operations in coming years has been greatly diminished.
With the trend toward protracted engagement, the commander in 2015 must pay close attention to political and strategic communication and needs a consensus based on a mandate, he said. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) coalition is holding firm despite pressures, and given Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal a chance to implement his counter insurgency plans. Such resilience is due to the alliance and consensus building, something that takes longer, but once agreement is reached members are strongly committed see it through.
The ad hoc coalition is easier to assemble, but at the same time, easier to unravel, Abrial said.
Trust is the major component coalition commanders need from contributing nations, he said. Participating nations also need to trust each other.
Caveats, those restrictions on national militaries’ part of coalitions, are most often the direct result of internal political pressures, or come from national, legal or even constitutional requirements.
For the future, coalitions need to move to a culture where caveats are increasingly rare, Abrial said.
Another area where trust and efficiency would benefit would be in the sharing of intelligence–moving from the need to know to the need to share.
Abrial pointed to the Afghan Mission Network initial operational capability coming in July which, for the first time, will network the ISAF commander with sub-networks.
A NATO system will be used from the outset in future operations, and needs to begin with the first circle of trust among NATO partners, hammering out a framework.
Coalitions by 2015 will need to consist not only of armed forces, but civilian organizations as well, he said. Commanders need a comprehensive approach, ranging from economic to political that the military cannot deliver on its own.
NATO’s comprehensive framework would allow a coalition commander to coordinate, facilitate or enable multiple players. “The key word is flexibility,” he said. A culture of cooperation and mutual respect must be built over time. Through education and training, future commanders should aspire to unity of effort.
Finally, he said, interoperability must be “hardwired into a program’s DNA.” The lack of interoperability leads to inefficiency and increased costs, and can be lethal.
However, he said, things are improving. But, we’re “not moving forward quickly and effectively enough.”