Ile C308 Coalition Paper

SUBJECT:   Recommend multinational command structure with command relationships for coalition forces to defend Azerbaijan.
  1. RECOMMENDATION:   Recommend a lead nation command structure with U.S. in the lead.

  A. Constraints.
  a. Language and cultural barriers along with different national interests may lead to difficult and lengthy negotiations and consensus in establishing the coalition.
  b. Different countries operating under different C2 functions creates difficulty in achieving a unity of effort, a unity of command and unity of action.
  c. The ability to form strong relationships of trust, mutual cooperation and understanding take time and testing.

  B. Advantages.
  a. A lead nation command structure calls for a smaller HQ.
  b. U.S contribution of forces far outnumbers other nations allowing better C2 and utilization of major military assets.
  c. Great Britain and Turkey have cooperated with U.S. in coalitions in the past.
  d. Stronger unity of effort and support due to cooperative agreement on structure.
  e. Organization is easier to organize and maintain.

  C. Disadvantages.
  a. Lead nation may become the focal point and detract from the coalition partnership.
  b. Subordinate nations in the coalition may feel neglected or overlooked.
  c. Intelligence flow may be more difficult to integrate among coalition partners.
  d. This model allows nations to withdraw easily if C2 conflicts arise thus weakening the coalition.

  2. JUSTIFICATION:   A lead nation is clearly the best choice of the three to handle the situation in Azerbaijan.   Due to the overwhelming contribution of U.S. forces and our vast experience in leading multinational coalitions the U.S. lead is preferred.   With the overwhelming number of U.S. troops already committed to the mission, command and control of the remaining coalition forces through U.S. command would be the least troublesome among the remaining nations.   A centralized command also leads to faster...