Published: 1 Mar 1997
Airpower Journal - Summer 1997

Command Arrangements for Peace Operations by David S. Alberts and Richard E. Hayes. National Defense University Press, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 20319-6000, 1995, 136 pages.

Given the number of ongoing, multinational peacekeeping operations, the topic of command structures-especially among American and international peacekeepers-is both relevant and controversial. The authors argue that the military is neither equipped nor prepared to engage in peacekeeping operations; thus, command arrangements take on increased importance. After analyzing recent coalition and peace operations by the United States (e.g., Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia), they conclude that successful peacekeeping operations require the US military to work with a wide variety of institutions and organizations. These include foreign governments, nonnational political actors, and international organizations, as well as private voluntary organizations and foreign military forces that are typically part of a peace operation. The authors use the term peace operations throughout the text to encompass all forms of peacekeeping and enforcement.

Although somewhat dated with regard to Bosnia, Command Arrangements is valuable because it explores a variety of arrangements and attempts to pinpoint the ones that troops in the field could use effectively. The first conclusion is that two command structures are required, since peacekeeping involves a political and military problem. Any form of military operation needs to be preplanned and adapted to the particular situation that might develop. A considerable command and control (C²) capability would have to exist, but such an arrangement is the only realistic way to conduct military actions in peace operations.

The authors make a key point of the use of liaisons, citing Operation Desert Storm, which saw over 150 three- and four-man teams deployed in-theater. Peace operations will require even greater exchanges of liaisons, coupled with communications systems to allow the exchange of information. Simplification of command arrangements in coalition operations is another requirement for successful mission execution. Assignment of missions based on capability, assignment of separate physical space to different commands, use of coordination teams, and exchange of liaison officers should be coupled with the creation of networks that permit informal communications among the coalition members and anyone working with them. Principles used in war fighting must also be modified to meet the mission (i.e., unity of purpose instead of unity of command and consensus planning rather than hierarchical decision making).

The book's overall assessment of US forces in peacekeeping operations is that they are far better employed in peace enforcement and peace imposition. Our forces are trained for combat and must be retrained for any peace operation. The authors conclude that we require a far more reliable and valid assessment of command arrangements in peace operations, including war games, simulations, and exercises, so that we can create valid and reliable systems of methodology and measurement for future operations. Command Arrangements has much valuable C² information that can be applied to current military and peace operations. But we cannot overlook the fact that the military establishment needs to study these command arrangements in more detail to ensure the success of future operations.

Capt Gilles Van Nederveen, USAF
Melbourne, Florida