The present work aims to identify the pros and cons of two command relationships COAs and determine their efficiency in reality. The next step to be undertaken is to issue a series of recommendations on the usage of both and to voice an opinion of the propriety of any of them.
Pros of COA #1
- it is less segmented thus presupposing less subordination and control relations and less fragmentation in command;
- the chain of combatant command is well-established as CDR USEUCOM exercises combatant command both over such divisions as ESEUCOM staff, USAREUR, USAFE, USNAVEUR, etc., ensuring more unified and coordinated functioning of all subdivisions and thus the success of the operation, and the joint forces commander who, despite his high, prioritized position in the COA still conducts further operational control;
- vertical relations between the subdivisions are efficiently established, which is highly important in any COA:
Vertical linkages cross the echelons of command… provide the connecting structure among tasks in the UJTL across the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war (UJTL 34).
Cons of COA #1
- senior coalition commander should have more control over coalition command and allied forces – not tactical control but operational control would be desired:
Coalitions are most often characterized by one of two basic structures: lead nation or parallel. In coalition operations, member nations may initially desire to retain even more control of their national forces than is generally associated with combined operations (Multinational Operations 2).
- the horizontal linkages are heterogeneous, involving different types of command, which may inefficiently affect the command in that definite war operation:
Horizontal linkages involve the synchronization of a variety of tasks in time and space based on a commander’s concept of operations for a mission and by joint doctrine (UJTL 34).
- in dealing with joint command of any type tactical control is undesired, which is present in COA #1 and seems to be inappropriate.
Pros of COA #2
- the scheme of operation and control is much more segmented, which presupposes quicker and more mobile operation;
- Combined Commander is under control of both JFC and CDR USEUCOM, which ensures fewer contradictions in the process of command;
- there is a separate commander for each type of force, thus providing their more efficient functioning.
Cons of COA #2
- commanders have only tactical control over allied forces of all types. This may involve discrepancies in activities, resulting from lack of authority given to the commanders’ roles;
- the scheme does not have any relations of coordination, which may also bring about a lack of intelligence work and a low level of information exchange;
- there are three authorities exercising power in COA #2 who have to be well-coordinated and work jointly to achieve the common aim, which can bring about unexpected, additional challenges.
Recommendations for both COAs
- COA#1 appears to be more efficient in the type of connection established between the authorities because of their varied type and normal quantity of responsible bodies. The lower number of commanders provides a higher level of unification of command;
- COA #2 may be more successful in terms of segmentation for spheres of influence, as different types of military forces are under the command of their separate authorities, thus being more aligned inside but not outside.
References
Multinational Operations. Joint Publications 3-16, 2007. Chapter II, 14 pp.
Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) CJCSM 3500.04C, 2002. Web.