Preparing for the unknown - from an operator`s perspective.indd

Military Studies Magazine
Preparing for the unknown
- from an operator’s perspective
by Peter Melgaard
Photo: Danish Defence
ISSUE 01, VOLUME 01, 2013
1
Subcribe at fak.dk/eng/magazine
Preparing for the unknown – from an operator’s perspective
Political involvement in missions carried out today warrants a change to military equipment used in conflicts
and calls for an attitude change at the operator level. In a political setting where smaller countries actively
contribute to military operations to help promote national values and their benefits in international relations,
carrying out complex missions with political success has increasing value. As a result of the increasing importance of political aspects in military operations, procurement of military equipment must be thoroughly analysed and update programmes must be sustained throughout the lifespan of that equipment for it to maintain
its political relevance. Also the mindset of operators must change to make generic doctrine work in a political
context.
By Peter Melgaard
The political value of military contributions to coalition operations
After the termination of Operation Unified Protector over Libya in late 2011 American President Obama
publicly complimented Danish Prime Minister Thorning-Schmidt for the Danish military contribution to the
conflict. Obama also noted that the Danish military effort had enabled the country to ‘punch above its weight
in international affairs’.1 Obama’s statement demonstrates the increasing political value of using military contributions as a means of promoting small-state agendas in international politics. Danish military contributions
are being used equal to, for example, economic trade agreements and political diplomatic efforts to promote
national agendas and improve international relations. At the political level, the number of forces deployed
and their overall effect on the military campaign are not as important as the symbolic value of contributing to
the alliance, thereby signalling the intentions of the Danish government in broad international forums. With
contributions to most major conflicts since 1990, the Danish government has clearly stated its intention to use
military force as a means to achieve political goals. This highlights the importance of the success or failure
of a single mission. Denmark dropped a total of 923 weapons on missions in Libya. However, a single bomb
hitting the wrong target would have caused political and international concern. As a result, Denmark might
have had to withdraw from the conflict. The political aspect of military operations adds to the complexity of
missions both at operational and tactical levels, presenting operators and equipment with different challenges.
Having participated in the 2011 air operations over Libya I have experienced these challenges. Since military
contributions have come to play a significant role in the political affairs of small Western states, in the remainder of this article I identify some of the desired characteristics which military equipment and its operators need
in order to be successful in future conflicts.
1
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/24/remarks-president-obama-and-primeminister-thorning-schmidt-denmark-afte
2
Desirable characteristics of military equipment
To be politically feasible, military contributions have to be rapidly deployable. The political value of being
‘first in’ in international conflicts is substantial. A small, rapidly deployable military unit gets more public
and political attention if it manages to be ‘on site’ within days or sometimes even hours. On the other hand,
larger military contributions that arrive on the battle scene well into the conflict tend to attract less attention.
In addition, military contributions have to be highly flexible. In a political context where participation per se
is more important than the size of the contribution, military equipment has to be useable in multiple scenarios.
It is near impossible to predict the characteristics of future conflicts. Instead, military capacities have to be
designed to be flexible enough to deal with multiple scenarios.
Future challenges to military equipment:
-
Rapidly deployable
-
Highly flexible
-
Provides maximum protection to own forces
-
Minimises collateral damage
-
Network centric
Solution:
-
Correct procurement considerations
-
A long-term update programme
The political value of participating in military operations decreases as unwanted loss of human life increases.
Military equipment has to reflect this dynamic by providing maximum protection to the intervening forces
while at the same time minimising collateral damage. ‘Clean fought’ wars where only the designated targets
suffer losses are those with desirable political value for the intervening states. This requires that the equipment
used is designed to find new ways of detecting targets, separating friend from foe, insurgents from civilians,
while using as little firepower as possible. Furthermore, the equipment used has to be network-centric in the
sense that multiple units should be able to communicate and share information. No existing platform is able
to generate perfect situational awareness on the battlefield. Therefore, high compatibility across the different types of equipment results in greater degrees of situational awareness, less collateral damage and higher
efficiency in meeting the mission objectives. Also, the political value of network-centric military equipment
enabling operators to combine efforts transnationally should not be underestimated.
So what are the consequences of all these requirements for the military equipment used today? Older equipment must be adapted to new missions. Alternatively, new equipment that can meet contemporary mission
objectives has to be procured. Most countries buy military equipment with a life expectancy between 10 and
30 years. To keep this equipment politically attractive, basic characteristics like deployability have to be considered at procurement, because subsequently this will be hard to change. On the other hand, flexibility and
3
network-centric capabilities will be part of an ongoing update cycle to ensure that the equipment stays (politically) operational throughout its lifespan.
Challenges to operators
Military contributions used as political tools present the operators with new challenges. Most military personnel is probably familiar with the term ‘Standard Operating Procedure’ (SOP). This is a generic way of operating equipment or synchronising effects. Within a purely military context this often makes sense and proves
to be the most efficient way to carry out missions. However, political concerns of non-military matters are
rarely reflected in these operational ‘patterns’. The complexity of military operations within a political context
makes it close to impossible for SOPs to cover the various options in a specific scenario. The same problem
exists in ‘Rules of Engagement’ (RoE). Whereas most military RoEs address potential political consequences of bombing religious buildings, their usefulness is less obvious when bombing a terrorist stronghold in a
densely populated residential area.
Future challenges to military operators:
Solution:
-
SOP and RoE inadequate
-
-
Complex decision making within a short
time frame
-
Decision depends on the political context of
the specific scenario
Operator’s mindset adapted to the political
context
The political implications of military operations seem to rule out generic ways of creating standards for the
operators to follow. Instead, they must be able to interpret core military RoEs in a political context and only
then decide if it still makes sense to carry out the necessary action. Instead of following execution orders ‘by
the book’, the operator must adapt to the complex military and political context of the specific mission and
only then make a decision. The operator needs a complex decision making matrix that cannot be found in
any book or deduced from generic rules. As a result, the operator must develop a mindset that can encompass
complex and autonomous decision making within a short time frame. This mindset should consist of simple
rules so as to not further complicate the mission. An example could be ‘If in doubt, no doubt’ – meaning that
an attack should not be executed if there is any doubt (military or political) about the consequences of that
attack, not even if it complies with formal RoE. Furthermore, this will not undermine the use of either RoE or
SOP as a proper mindset, taking into account both political and military complexity. It will refine the use of
these generic terms and provide the operator with the contextual touch and finesse that is needed to make the
general rules applicable in a political context.
Peter ‘MEL’ Melgaard is a captain in the Royal Danish Air Force. He has flown F-16 fighter aircrafts for
more than 12 years and has participated in flying duty in Operations Odyssey Dawn and Unified Protector
4
over Libya in 2011. MEL is currently attending the joint staff course at The Royal Danish Defence College.
Subsequently, he will be working with identifying the fighter aircraft that is to replace the Danish F-16s at the
end of the decade.
5