Leadership and Joint Operations

¶ … leadership different for joint operations? Do you think this is a critical component for effective military leadership for today's military? The need for the United States to act jointly as part of a community-based international effort vs. striking alone has become increasingly important. There are more multinational threats posed in the form of non-state actors like terrorists as well as an upsurge in rogue regimes. This requires a different military philosophy. "To mount security operations, there are certain constraints.

These constraints are that they will be expeditionary; multinational; will involve nonmilitary agencies; and will last a long time."[footnoteRef:1] It is critical that the military leadership of the United States is able to work with the military of other nations and international bodies. Joint operations demand acute cultural sensitivity: unlike a national operation, in which all soldiers share a common culture and background, not all military bodies universally share such characteristics.

If the goal of the intervention is for the nation to eventually take control over its own military operations after a U.S.

intervention, there may be need for additional considerations when constructing the joint endeavors, such as the ability for the home nation to engage in a strategic transfer of authority over a series of phases.[footnoteRef:2] [1: Dave Fielder, "Defining command, leadership, and management success factors within operations," PKSOI Factors, June 2011, 10] [2: Fielder, 12] At the beginning of a military endeavor, it is widely acknowledged that there should be clear goals and a clear plan for action.

This is often difficult enough as a unilateral effort -- as a joint effort a similar consensus must be achieved, given that friction between the participating bodies can lead to a lack of effective concerted effort.

"Achieving these objectives requires integrating joint force actions with those of interagency and perhaps multinational partners." [footnoteRef:3] For example, there may be conflict between participating nations who wish one side of a conflict during a peacemaking mission to prevail, while international, neutral bodies such as the United Nations are mainly concerned with casualty reduction and preserving human life. There may also be conflicts as to what constitutes acceptable levels of involvement in the internal workings of another nation.

However, regardless of such concerns, international joint missions are likely to increase rather than decrease in the future. Possessing diverse capabilities and the ability to integrate those capabilities are vital. "Urban environments and other complex terrain will increasingly characterize areas of operation that may include both humanitarian crisis conditions and combat operations."[footnoteRef:4] Often, partner nations may have greater knowledge of the geography and politics of the region. [3: Richard Myers, "Capstone concept for joint operations," U.S.

Department of Defense, 2005, available http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/ccjov2.pdf (3 Sept 2013)] [4: Myers, 5] Even within the U.S. military, there have been philosophical conflicts when different branches have had to engage in an integrated mission. For example, in the effort in Somalia, the effort to bring peace and stability in the form of the United Task Force (UNITAF) Somalia brought together both the capabilities of the Marines and the Army (ARFOR).

It was discovered that while "division staffs tend to focus on tactics…an ARFOR must have an operational perspective; divisions do not usually become involved in relationships with commands and organizations at echelons above corps and are not adept at them. For an ARFOR, interaction at these echelons is routine and vital." [footnoteRef:5] Even different components.