What makes a military, or a military operation, effective? While it is
difficult to concisely say, or narrow it down to one deciding factor, budget,
training, culture, leadership, morale, technology, and more all play a role. Recognizing
the complexity and interconnectedness of these factors can help in the overall evaluation
of the quality and effectiveness of a military.
However, each nation has a unique way of creating a military and then
training, equipping, and using it. So given the diversity between one nation’s
military and another nation’s military, what happens when militaries work
together? Not just in the sense of conducting joint exercises or training, but
rather, what happens when troops from different countries come together to
collectively fight a war?
For a recent example: NATO. After the September 11 attack on the United
States, the United Nations Security Council created the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) and eventually NATO was charged with supervising a
coalition of troops ultimately assembled from 49 contributing countries. The
countries represented were as varied as El Salvador, Germany, Montenegro, Tonga,
and the United States.
How effective is a transnational coalition though? Are so many diverse
countries able to work together and create meaningful progress? In 2013,
reports that Taliban attacks in Afghanistan had decreased in 2012 were proven
to be false, leading some to wonder if anything productive and long-lasting is
being accomplished by the NATO troops in Afghanistan. The length of the war in Afghanistan is also troubling to many. Additionally,
despite NATO’s multinational factor, that has not helped sway global public
opinion in support of the war in Afghanistan. The Pew Global Attitudes Project
conducted a survey in which the majority of respondents in 32 out of 47
countries thought all foreign troops should leave Afghanistan. Even countries in NATO who had troops in Afghanistan wanted the troops to
leave. The war has also grown increasingly unpopular in America and many
Americans view the war in Afghanistan as unsuccessful overall. If NATO is truly
effective, why is the war so drawn out, why is the Taliban still thriving, and
why do most people want the troops to leave?
Yet despite what many would call a futile attempt in regards to the war
in Afghanistan, others cite Libya as a recent NATO success story. In 2011, NATO
intervened in Libya and President Obama commented on the extraordinary
effectiveness of NATO and how closely American and French soldiers were able to
work together – even to the extent of having Americans pilot French fighter
jets.
So while the merits and likability of NATO are certainly up for debate, perhaps what
is most pertinent to this discussion is the question: just how effective can
NATO potentially be, given the fact that it is a transnational military force?
Well, in order to be effective, troops need to have some amount of mutual understanding. For this reason, shortly after its creation in 1949, NATO realized
the importance of standardizing and it formed the Military Agency for
Standardization in 1951. This later
merged with the Office of NATO Standardization, which eventually morphed into
the NATO Standardization Agency (NSA). Through this agency, NATO has
implemented a number of Standardization Agreements (STANAG) to help coordinate
the member nations’ militaries. These STANAGs allow countries to ratify agreements which establish common
ground and synchronize operational procedures, technology, equipment, and so
on. From aircraft marshalling signals, to doctrine for countering improvised
explosive devices, to a glossary of abbreviations, to doctrine for special
operations, the STANAGs give all NATO nations a universal framework that if
jointly executed, creates a more effective multinational military. Instead of each country trying to accomplish things its own way, finding
agreement and commonality with each other will enable more unity, and hence, a
greater chance of effectively working together.
NATO’s STANAGs accounts for significant political, strategic,
operational, and tactical cooperation that enables NATO to more effectively
conduct the operations that it is involved in. But is it enough? Can STANAGs
teach initiative, create morale, overlook social differences, and compel information
sharing? Can unit cohesion and trust be created in a multinational force? Initial thoughts indicate that NATO has some of
the ingredients needed for success. While the STANAGs do not help with the
global perception of international war, and while they do not seem to strongly deal
with all areas and considerations, they are a step towards ensuring NATO’s
military capability is as efficient as possible by addressing issues that could
hamper its effectiveness as a military force.