Joint Operations

The term ‘joint operations’ refers to the integrated deployment under single command of operational units or personnel from more than one Service or part of the Defence organi-sation (including the Support Command (CDC) and the Military Intelligence and Security Service (MIVD)), as well as the measures, organisational methods, etc, which lead to such a deployment. Joint operations are primarily designed to ensure effective deployment⁹.

This ’jointness’ aims to integrate and optimise the specific capabilities of the different components (operational commands in the case of Netherlands armed forces) in such a way that they reinforce each other. ‘Joint’ does not mean that all components will participate in a specific operation merely because they are there. ‘Jointness’ in command does not, therefore, simply mean a proportionate representation of all Services, but involves a mix of mutually supplementary relevant expertise and experience which can be used to form an effective force or headquarters. The commander of a joint unit has the responsibility and the authority to select from the capabilities available to him those capabilities that will lead most effectively and efficiently to success. Successful joint operations involve teamwork based on cooperation and confidence in each other’s abilities. The synergy generated by joint operations enlarges the available capability and increases the likelihood of a better outcome.

The decision making and integrated planning for joint operations will often take place at operational level. Joint operations are often associated with this higher level, although today’s operations show that joint operations also occur at the lower, tactical level. In this case, it is often about the execution of activities for the actual realisation of effects. The joint nature of operations places heavy demands on the coordination of capabilities.

Interoperability, training and joint doctrine are important requirements for optimising joint deployments.

9 source: corporate definitions framework (2008)

10 Growing numbers of service personnel participating in modern operations are, however, experiencing joint aspects earlier in their career.

11

Military personnel are often older by the time they find themselves working in a joint environment.¹⁰ Because a large number of military personnel spend a substantial part of their career in their ‘own’ Service, they usually have a better knowledge of, greater expe-rience in and more affinity with that part of the organisation. As well as cultural differences, there are also Service-specific differences in command which could have an effect.

The specific way command is approached from the particular domains of sea, land and air may be different. Air forces, for example, almost always adhere to centralised planning and decentralised execution because of scarce resources, whereas land forces often have a greater degree of decentralisation. The geographical characteristics of land, sea and air also form a completely different frame of reference for time and space factors, which can lead to differing views about organisational structures or requirements for situational awareness¹¹.

It is important that commanders do not ignore the differences that exist in terms of opinions and culture, but that they actually use the strong points while at the same time creating a common or joint frame of reference.

23

1.7.2 Multinationality

Deployment of the armed forces in a multinational coalition¹² such as NATO is the usual situation in today’s operations. The reasons for multinational operations may vary.

Normally, only a coalition is able to assemble the various capabilities necessary for a successful operation. In addition, multinationality also provides the necessary political and social support and legitimacy. The national interests of the members of the multinational group will determine the nature and size of the contribution that the countries are prepared to make and thus the strength and effectiveness of the force. The contributions made by these countries should not only be judged on the basis of the actual operational capabilities of the troops supplied, but also in terms of the politico-military advantages generated by their participation. These advantages could be the fact that the risk is shared, a demonstra-tion of the willingness to act and the positive influence on nademonstra-tional and internademonstra-tional opinion and support. The military advantage is that cooperation adds to the force in terms of quantity (more troops) and quality (scarce specialist capabilities). Cooperation also means access to important information and intelligence and enables the efficient use of logistic assets.

12 Multinational operations are usually conducted within the structure of an international security organisation, an alliance or coalition. An

alliance is a relationship based on a formal agreement (a treaty, for example) between two or more countries, involving general long-term objectives which serve the common interests of the members. A coalition is an ad-hoc alliance between two or more countries in order to conduct a joint action with a more limited common interest. Coalitions are normally formed on the basis of specific aims and are often a

24

Multinationality also brings restrictions, however, which affect the operational effectiven-ess of the force. These are the national restrictions and conditions (caveats) which apply to the deployment of the assigned troops and units. In many cases, there are also shortco-mings in respect of interoperability which have an adverse effect on the cohesion and capacity of the force. Multinational operations create opportunities but also limitations, and commanders must be able to deal with that paradox. They must find a balance between multinationality and operational effectiveness.¹³

13 The commander’s role versus multinationality is explored further in Chapter 2.

25

26