Air University Review, November-December 1982

Commonality of Military Doctrine
in the Inter-American Region

The recent increasing focus on political instability in Central America and the Caribbean area and the potential consequences for U.S. security interests in those regions make especially timely a current proposal before the Inter-American Defense Board to examine the desirability of an interoperability plan for its member forces. Clearly, such a plan (with intended focus on weapon and communication systems) would be greatly facilitated if it were provided with a basis of commonality in the tactical military doctrine espoused by the services of the respective nations.

Understandably, any consideration of doctrinal commonality within an environment as politically and socially diverse as the Inter-American region abounds in deep-rooted, formidable problems. As Alexander H. Cornell has observed, in describing NATO efforts to promote commonality, "Political arguments are among the toughest of all to overcome; they lurk behind most of the others. They have their roots in sovereignty, nationalism, concepts of power, equality and independence." But he goes on, to point but that if reasonable solutions are to be expected other grounds must be sought for such arguments: "In a survival situation, they must be grounded in notions of equity, interdependence and internationalism"^l My purpose here is to suggest, in the face of manifest problems pervading the Inter-American region, the relative ease with which a useful degree of commonality might be achieved in certain areas of tactical doctrine, both general and specific.

Tactical military doctrine conventionally includes three levels of application: basic doctrine, encompassing broad outlines for operating in a particular environment (land, sea, air); operational doctrine, providing for distinctive functional areas (e.g., airmobile operations); and operational tactics, describing specific maneuvers within a functional area (e.g., ground tactical deployment procedures for helicopter assault force).²

Commonality of doctrine on any of these levels, basic through operational, refers to the willingness or ability of two or more individual military units to cooperate in their respective mission areas in order to attain a common objective more efficiently. Commonality thus can apply to units within a specific service branch, to service branches within a nation’s armed force structure, and to national armed forces within an international alliance.

On the international level, commonality of military doctrine is achieved principally through: agreements and publications—e.g., memorandums of understanding (MOUs) and tactical doctrine publications, staff conferences and visits, and joint operations and exercises.

In examining the question of commonality of doctrine in the Inter-American security system, it may be useful to review existing agreements, conference arrangements, exercises, etc., that reflect a degree of common sharing already present in Inter-American military relations. It may also be helpful to consider suggestions for providing a firmer codification of doctrinal commonality through the development of guidance publications. Some of the following material is derived from NATO documents, which are the cornerstone of that organization’s rationalization/standardization/interoperability (RSI) program and thus may be useful in suggesting methods of promoting interoperability within the Inter-American community.

Much of the military liaison that presently takes place among American states is conducted through a network of existing agreements. These cover such varied actions as military missions, maintenance of weather stations, supply of military equipment, mutual defense assistance, and aerial mapping. The System of Cooperation Among the American Air Forces (SICOFAA) Multilateral Agreement on Search and Rescue offers a good example of a working agreement that has sustained a variety of exercises and actual disaster operations over the last eight years. Especially noteworthy is the use it makes of existing International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) procedures, conceding ultimately to ICAO in the event of conflict of procedure. Additional agreements in other areas can similarly avoid sensitive political complication by adhering, wherever possible, to existing international agreements covering commercial and industrial relations.

Tactical military doctrine is generally articulated in three basic areas: land force tactical doctrine, maritime tactical doctrine, and Air Force tactical doctrine. Documents in each of these areas provide a common basis for the development of specific doctrinal and procedural publications for guidance in operational tactics. Subordinate procedural publications can be developed as they become necessary to support particular operational requirements.

Many publications useful for the Inter-American Security System may be derived from current documents in the NATO Allied Tactical Publication (ATP) series. These would require occasional modification for Inter-American security needs, but most of their content is relevant, particularly in the basic publications, and may be used with little alteration.

A typical schematic for a basic plan may be seen in the NATO Tactical Air Doctrine publication, ATP 33(A). Its range is broad enough to be immediately adaptable (often word-for-word) to Inter-American security needs. (See accompanying box.)

Within the framework of a basic plan such as ATP 33(A), supporting plans for specific sections can be developed as they become necessary or desirable. Some are already in existence in a form easily adaptable to the plan structure. For example, the SICOFAA guidance for search and rescue operations provides an existing document that can be integrated into the overall plan with little difficulty.

The conferences conducted by each major service—Army, Navy, and Air Force—provide strong evidence of tendencies toward commonality of military doctrine among the armed forces of the member states. In the descriptions that follow, the Air Force conferences within SICOFAA are presented in detail to emphasize the functions of individual committees. Each committee meets regularly to exchange ideas and information on matters of mutual concern in specific significant areas of interest. Each of these committee meetings reflects demonstrable progress in a movement toward commonality. The cumulative contribution of all the meetings is impressive proof of the level of sharing that already exists within the Inter-American region.

Conference of American Armies. CAA meets every other year and includes regular meetings of subordinate groups: Inter-American Communications Committee, Intelligence Chiefs Committee, and a "Third Committee," which reviews issues of procedure and substance. Of these, the Communications Committee meets earlier than the conference and provides input for the agenda; the Intelligence Chiefs Committee meets both ahead of and during the conference.

Inter-American Naval Conference. ANC meets every other year. The 1980 meeting included three principal subconferences:

1. HOSTAC (Helicopter Operations from Ships other Than Aircraft Carriers) establishes procedures for helicopter ship-to-ship operations during UNITAS (Inter-American naval) exercises

2. INIC (Inter-American Naval Intelligence Conference)

3. Inter-American Naval SAR (search and rescue) Conference, organized as the result of a Brazilian Navy proposal.

Conference of the Chiefs of the American Air Forces. CONJEFAMER meets once each year. The Air Force Conference, unlike its Army and Navy counterparts, meets with an agenda already prepared by the following committees of the System of Cooperation Among the American Air Forces:

1. PROTOREP (protocol and public relations): Develops common doctrine of protocol and public relations among American Air Forces

2. Training (initially for enlisted personnel— now all levels of training): Recommends improvements in existing multinational training and facilitates the exchange of information on training available from member Air Forces

3. PREVAC (aircraft accident prevention):

Standardizes flying safety programs and information exchanges; updates multinational accident investigation manual

4. ALM (mutual logistics support): Standardizes reciprocal maintenance among non-U.S. members

5. CAMI (Inter-American Military Transport Service): Standardizes aircraft space availability for official-business travel, plus space-available travel for military and dependents among non-U.S. members

6. MEDFAA (Medicine in American Air Forces): Provides integration and standardization of specific aspects of medicine in the Air Forces of the hemisphere

7. CIMFA (meteorology): Standardizes weather procedures for hemisphere Air Forces

8. SITFA (telecommunications): Provides integration and standardization of all aspects of voice and printed telecommunications in the member Air Forces

9. SAR (search and rescue): Standardizes multinational search and rescue procedures for the Air Forces of the hemisphere

10. ATX (disaster relief exercises): Multinational exercise, held every other year, which tests the practical aspects of the work of all the other committees.

Additionally, visits of military personnel between member nations continue to nourish service relationships. A recent visit of Brazilian Air Force officers to the United States following a visit to Brazil by the USAF Chief of Staff and Other USAF personnel has provided a good example of the value of this kind of exchange.

Telecommunications Networks. The Inter-American telecommunications systems are high-frequency single-sideband voice and radioteletype networks conducted within individual services. The primary mission of each is to promote a greater degree of mutual understanding among the member services and increase their communication capabilities for hemispheric defense.³ Some specific services offered through the Inter-American Telecommunications System, Air Force (SITFA) are listed. (The Army and Navy systems similarly provide specific services.)

1. Overflight and landing clearance requests of foreign aircraft

2. Aircraft movement information

3. Search and rescue information

4. Weather information

5. Logistical data

6. Administrative information

7. Personal traffic

Air Transport Exercises (ATX) and search and rescue operations have recently been integrated under the title Disaster Relief and SAR Exercises. The combination of the air transport and search and rescue operations has proved extremely successful in providing multinational response to disaster relief scenarios as well as to actual emergency situations within the hemisphere.

UNITAS is an Inter-American naval exercise conducted annually since 1960 in either bilateral or multilateral phases. Commander South Atlantic Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (USCOMSOLANT) serves as UNITAS Task Force Commander. The last exercise, UNITAS XXII, was the most comprehensive and advanced maneuver ever conducted with Latin American navies. Included for the first time were the following: combined amphibious operations, including landings; minewarfare operations, including demonstrations of sowing and sweeping; and involvement of a United States Coast Guard element to give demonstrations in SAR, fire fighting, law enforcement, and aids to navigation.

OCEAN VENTURE-81, involving the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, and Venezuela, was conducted through the UNITAS exercise. This was the most ambitious and complex exercise ever conducted using these combined forces. Phase I of this exercise, which took place in the South Atlantic, also included participation of units of the USAF Strategic Air Command. Subsequent phases were conducted in the Caribbean and in areas under NATO jurisdiction, involving the forces of ten NATO countries. The primary aim of OCEAN VENTURE-81 was to demonstrate and improve the capability of maritime forces to protect and maintain free use of sea lines of communication.

Observations are sometimes made that the Inter-American interoperability proposal appears rather primitive when compared to the extensive and many-faceted NATO program. Of course it may seem weak by comparison, but the point that should not be overlooked is that a significant foundation currently exists in the Inter-American system for the development of a commonality/interoperability working apparatus. It is true that much needs to be done in order to develop an efficient program, but it is no less true that much of the groundwork has already been laid.

1. Alexander H. Cornell, "Collaboration in Weapons and Equipment," NATO Review, October 1980, p. 17.

2. Harold Brown, Rationalization Standardization Within NATO, A Report to the United States Congress (Seventh Report), January 1981, p. 129.

3. See United States Air Force SITFA Station, Andrews AFB, D.C. (no date).

Colonel Joseph H. Stodder, USAFR (Ret) (B.A., Spring Hill College; M.A., Loyola University of Los Angeles; Ph.D., University of Southern California), is a professor of English at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, and he serves as a consultant with the Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California. Colonel Stodder held a mobilization assignment in the Western Hemisphere Division, Hq USAF, and was a tactical and strategic airlift pilot with additional duty as liaison officer at the USAF Academy. Colonel Stodder is a previous contributor to the Review and a graduate of Air War College and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor