Concerning Multinational Staff Efficiency and Future NATO Operations

Abstract

Following the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military forces engaged in a series of out-of-area missions involving peace operations. The operational staffs involved in controlling these operations entered an often bewildering world of United Nations reports, incorporating Alliance and non-Alliance partners into their own military procedures, and working alongside numerous civilian agencies representing non-government and private volunteer organizations. As the NATO Implementation Force (IFOR) discovered in 1996, success for ad hoc multinational headquarters in the post-Cold War era often came down to the personalities of individual commanders and staff members, but not necessarily overall staff efficiency. While particular commanders and staff members can make a difference during a military operation, NATO staff officers continue to bear the burden of controlling the day-to-day activities within the area of operation that lead to mission success or failure. Given the complexity of today’s peace operations, an efficient and effective NATO operational staff in the field seems vital for mission accomplishment. Yet, without a cohesive staff to issue orders, gather and submit reports, sort through crises, and monitor numerous activities, a commander often must divert personal time to mundane tasks that distract from the broader operational perspective. Staff efficiency becomes essential for freeing the commander to focus on mission accomplishment rather than headquarters bureaucracy. While developing an efficient staff is an admirable goal, attempting to build staff cohesion during a crisis can be frustrating. Much of this aggravation originates with the staff members themselves, many of whom often have been added to the headquarters at the last minute as replacements or necessary experts. Such individuals often arrive in theater lacking the necessary decision-making skills, suffer from language or terminology differences, or have little—if any—familiarity with often complex reporting procedures. Given the daily pace of an ongoing operation, making up deficiencies in staff skills is difficult at best. Creating an efficient staff means forming the headquarters in advance and training the members to a common standard. While this is not always possible due to the timesensitive nature of international crises, there are instances where staff cohesion can be