THE GREATEST CHALLENGE TO COALITION SUCCESS
CHALLENGE TO COALITION SUCCESS
Instructions: Briefly describe which of the lines of effort listed is the greatest challenge (combat operations, information operations or building partner capacity) to coalition success in Operation Inherent Resolve. Next, explain how the DoD can overcome that challenge in OIR. Fully support and defend your answer using logic and citations of supporting material where appropriate (course material, doctrine, outside sources). To be successful in this assignment, you must display critical thinking as you analyze specific joint elements surrounding OIR.
Solution.
THE GREATEST CHALLENGE TO COALITION SUCCESS.
Introduction
United States has been aggressively involved in war against terrorists since the 9/11 attack. Over this period the US government has struggled in finding the best means of developing suitable strategies, quantifying their success and providing transparency as well as credibility to the Congress (KOUTROULIS, 2016). Despite an outline of strategies for combating the ISIL terrorists that are a threat to the US homeland, friends and allies, the US has failed to accomplish its mission against these terrorists.
The strategies are aimed at degrading and conquering the terrorists through development of able governance, prohibiting a safe haven for the group by assisting the forces of the two countries in combating the terrorists, disrupting finances, improving collection of information, disrupting threats and blocking the terrorists communication (Thompson, 2012).
Major Challenge
The major challenge that US face in its war against terrorism is in building partner capacity. US has to combine the three military forces including the army, navy and the air force in the process referred to as Joint Operational Planning with the Iraq and Syrian armies which is a big challenge (Wagner, 2014). The forces contain different arms that should also be involved in the operations. In the Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), USA involves itself with the forces of the two countries to form partnership. This poses a great challenge in developing similar objectives, strategies and general coordination between US and the two countries.
Moreover, the joint operations results in poor communication both within the US forces and the two countries due to different strategies that each party, has been used to such as the time for attack for Iraq soldiers could be different with that of US forces resulting in confusion on whether one is an enemy or a partner (Wilkinson & Chisholm, 2015). In addition, communication could be a problem in forming partner capacity because different forces in the ISIS host countries understand a different language from that which the US soldiers use. Communication could also be a problem among different US forces, due to different training. In multinational operations, the type of weapons and military attire could also make partnerships a challenge because; US could confuse the forces of Iraq and Syria with those of the enemies.
Another, challenge facing the formation of partnerships involves the inability to be innovative in formation of strategies. In most, cases the leaders involved in forming strategies are former soldiers, perceived to have experience in war. However, experience is not enough in the current world where technology has resulted in development of lethal weapons that terrorists use. Innovation is necessary in joint operations, which should be higher than that of the enemies in order to defeat them.
Furthermore, the challenge of space operations also affects joint operations, because of the ease of access to the space technologies (Reilley & Riddle, 2017). Many countries have acquired technologies and systems that are able to interfere with joint operations such as cyber-attacks that able to degrade or destroy the space systems of the joint operations (Vanhullebusch, 2015). Moreover, the joint operations leaders should also be prepared in preventing attacks on space operations as well as preventing their occurrence if they occur (Petran, 2010). Moreover, there are vulnerabilities associated with the US and its partnership with the two countries in the cyberspace as well as the information operations. Effective usage of irregular capabilities makes it easier for the enemies to attack the US, by obtaining information about the US in the process of hacking.
Solution to the Problems
Despite the challenge of forming partnership being the major reason for US failure to produce positive results in the fight against ISIS, there are several strategies that have developed by the US in an effort to complete its mission (Kaválek, 2015). The mission costs the US more than $5 billion, hence the need to put more effort in attaining goals set on ISIS mission (Paasche & Gunter, 2016). Formation of Inter-organizational planning and coordination is one of the strategies that the US uses to enhance partnerships among different elements of the department of the defense forces (DOD) and non-governmental agencies (Meijer, 2010). Moreover, joint operations and planning is done under APEX, which solves the problem of policies, processes and structures under joint operations.
The US strategic planning for joint operations should involve senior defense leaders as well as new military individuals and outside the defense forces who would bring out new and innovative ideas about the best ways to overpower the enemy (Barber, Bobo & Strum, 2015). The senior and experienced individuals may stick back to old ways, which would not suit the current technology of the enemy (Hokayem, 2014). Moreover, in order to boost innovation and advanced strategies, the US defense forces need to use Operational art and design. In this case, the commanders combine both science and art in creating effective means of defeating the terrorists, through application of knowledge and skills.
Design on the other hand involves complete understanding and framing problems, which aids commanders in the operation of art using methodology and tools in order to develop effective approaches in the joint processes (Bettwy, 2011). The design brings up an approach that is used in the joint operations, applied by the combatant commanders in the whole process of war against the enemy. Nonetheless, design also assists the combatant commanders using conceptual tools in finding out the solution towards the problems of understanding the operational area as well as designing an approach to solving the problem.
Nevertheless, in order to solve the problem of forming common goals among different arms of forces and armies for Iraq and Syria, a Joint Operational Planning Process (JOPP) needs to be formed (Hills, 2011). The process is necessary in the planning process for combating the terrorists as it also enables the commanders in understanding the region of the enemy hence helping the members of the joint operations in combating the enemy (Bakker, Paulussen & Entenmann, 2013). JOPP contains seven steps to be followed in the process of combating the enemy involving, planning launch of the mission, analysis, development of course of action, approval of the course of action among other steps.
Nevertheless, the challenge of space operations should be solved by limiting or prohibiting the adversaries from using the satellites (North & Holton, 2013). US, and the two countries should be able to find a means through which they could use the satellites by controlling the active ones and or be able to monitor all communications through the satellites (Jankovic, 2010). The challenge of hacking the cyberspace and information operations for the joint operations should prevented by being alert for such actions. The military should incorporate both offensive and defensive strategies in the cyberspace operations.
Conclusion
Joint operations are important in cutting down the high cost associated with war against the terrorists due to complex environment with a decline in resources. It is therefore important for countries to engage in joint operations in order to defeat the enemy. For the success, of joint operations the challenges highlighted above should be solved and the joint planners have to understand with the principles of or coordination among agencies and different armies in order to achieve the desired goals. Moreover, joint planners should also be aware that multinational participants have different military abilities, resources and cultures that should be considered in order to create an effective plan.
References
Bakker, E., Paulussen, C., & Entenmann, E. (2013). Dealing with European Foreign Fighters in Syria: Governance Challenges and Legal Implications. Terrorism And Counter-Terrorism Studies.
Barber, D., Bobo, T., & Strum, K. (2015). Cyberspace Operations Planning: Operating a Technical Military Force beyond the Kinetic Domains. Military Cyber Affairs, 1(1).
Bettwy, S. (2011). Multinational Corporations are Overlooked Players in Stability, Security, Transition and Reconstruction Operations. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Hills, A. (2011). The inherent limits of military forces in policing peace operations. International Peacekeeping, 8(3), 79-98.
Hokayem, E. (2014). Iran, the Gulf States and the Syrian Civil War. Survival, 56(6), 59-86.
Jankovic, D. (2010). International standards in the fight against terrorism. Medjunarodni Problemi, 62(4), 602-628.
Kaválek, T. (2015). From al-Qaeda in Iraq to Islamic State: The Story of Insurgency in Iraq and Syria in 2003-2015. Alternatives: Turkish Journal Of International Relations, 14(1), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.21599/atjir.29299
KOUTROULIS, V. (2016). The Fight Against the Islamic State and Jus in Bello. Leiden Journal Of International Law, 29(03), 827-852.
Meijer, D. (2010). Another connection between Sippar and Syria?. Iraq, 72, 201-204.
North, O. & Holton, C. (2013). American heroes in the fight against radical Islam (1st ed.). Nashville, Tenn.: B & H Pub.
Paasche, T. & Gunter, M. (2016). Revisiting Western Strategies against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. The Middle East Journal, 70(1), 9-29.
Petran, T. (2010). The Coups in Iraq and Syria. Monthly Review, 15(1), 31.
Reilley, J. & Riddle, M. (2017). SPACE & NUCLEAR OPERATIONS, 36-45.
Thompson, W. (2012). United States strategy and military operations to counter the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and United States policy toward Iraq and Syria (1st ed.).
Vanhullebusch, M. (2015). The Arab League and Military Operations: Prospects and Challenges in Syria. International Peacekeeping, 22(2), 151-168.
Wagner, M. (2014). The challenges of Iraq: putting US Army stability operations doctrine to the test. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 19(4), 484-509.
Waśko–Owsiejczuk, E. (2016). The American Military Strategy to Combat the ‘Islamic State’ in Iraq and Syria: Assumptions, Tactics and Effectiveness. Polish Political Science Yearbook, 45, 317-336.
Wilkinson, P. & Chisholm, R. (2015). The fight against terrorism (1st ed.). Toronto, Canada: Mackenzie Institute for the Study of Terrorism, Revolution, and Propaganda.
Yearbook of Islamic and Middle Eastern Law, E. (2010). United States-Iraq Resolutions. Yearbook Of Islamic And Middle Eastern Law Online, 4(1), 489-496.
