Commentary
As the Government of the United States engaged the range of options open to it to counter the international scourge of terrorism that erupted on 11 September, we watched the birth of a coalition unparalleled in magnitude and resolve. To be sure, we have seen military coalitions in the past. In fact, in recent years we have witnessed coalition operations on a scale never before considered, from Bosnia to East Timor to Kosovo, to name a few.
However, the coalitions that we have seen up to now had one remarkable difference from the one formed to eradicate terrorist threats. They involved a primarily military force deployed to make or preserve peace between other opposing military forces. But the horrific events of 11 September introduced a new variable—an enemy who does not play by the rules, an enemy who regularly uses suicide as a tactic, an enemy who has no compassion for human life and does not differentiate between military and civilians or among men, women, and children. The arsenal of the new coalition formed to combat this enemy includes a wide range of weapons: diplomacy; information systems security; and legal, military, and economic action.
Now we have to determine the effect the world war on terrorism will have on our "conventional" military future. Will we continue to observe and be engaged in the type of conflict that has characterized the world since the end of the Cold War? I, for one, think we will. Are we likely to be involved in multinational military operations? I believe we are. At some point, the war on terrorism and conventional operations will merge. Are we, as logisticians, trained and ready to meet the challenges that may be presented, wherever in the world we may be called to serve, and working with whomever the United States may be aligned militarily or diplomatically? I'm not sure.
In past issues of Army Logistician, there has been supportive commentary on the need for multinational logistics education. In fact, most people with whom I've spoken on this subject have been in complete agreement that formal multinational logistics training would be welcomed. However, training should not jump to the head of the line just because we agree that it is necessary. The first step has to be development of doctrine, especially when the content of the new training may potentially involve coalition and alliance policies and procedures that are not always compatible with U.S. national interests.
Joint Publication 4-08, Joint Doctrine for Logistics Support of Multinational Operations, has been in the development stage for several years. It was in the final coordination stage in the spring of 2001, when it was reclassified as a joint test publication so its content could be validated during the fall Focused Logistics Wargame (FLOW). (FLOW is an assessment tool used to evaluate the capability of U.S. joint forces to support the warfighter). It is anticipated now that the doctrine will be approved and published by July 2002. Training could reasonably be expected to follow soon after that.
Germane to any discussion on multinational logistics training is the fact that it is a new concept. Over the past several years, the Army Logistics Management College (ALMC) at Fort Lee, Virginia, has prepared articles, collected and analyzed information, processed administrative requirements, and taught overview blocks of instruction on multinational logistics. The concept is now well defined, but that is only part of the equation. A parallel step is defining the personnel training requirements in the field. Identified training will translate into actual numbers at the Army's Structure Manning Decision Review, held annually in Washington, D.C., and at its sister service equivalents. If the need for multinational logistics training is considered critical, it may be included on the agenda at the J4 Logistics Conference of Logistics Directors, also held annually in the Washington, D.C., area.
If you feel that you require more formal multinational logistics training than is currently provided, either now or for a future assignment, you must identify that requirement through your chain of command. In these days of doing more with less, it is difficult to justify devoting resources to something that has not been established clearly as a bona fide requirement. Therefore, if additional multinational logistics training truly is needed, as is apparently the case, then it is our collective responsibility as logisticians to say so. Failure to speak up may result in U.S. logisticians deploying to multinational operations around the globe with less than optimal knowledge of coalition and alliance logistics policies and procedures. This deficit could potentially hamper operations, as well as have a negative impact on the projection of U.S. forces into an area of operations.
Major Edward C. Weatherill is a Canadian Exchange Officer at the Army Logistics Management College at Fort Lee, Virginia. A graduate of the Royal Military College of Canada, he is a Supply Officer (Quartermaster) who has over 28 years of active-duty service in the Canadian Army.