¶ … 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...

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…