Strengths and Limitations of Multinational Coalitions: The Gulf War - Term Paper Example

 Strengths and Limitations of Multinational Coalitions Introduction Multinational coalition as the name suggests means coming together of many nations for a common course or deal with some common problem. These countries upon coming together, they join their way of making decisions or operations. For instance, most multinational coalitions are formed to fight terrorism or to restore peace in nations that for many years have suffered violence, destruction, bloodshed, and loss of life (Bush and Brent 457). In other circumstances, multinational coalitions may be between a country and international organizations, such as, the Organization for Security and Cooperation or the United Nations. The may come into an agreement with a certain nation to help fight violence among others. For example, in 1990s, United State government, intervened on a number of occasions for humanitarian reasons; sending troops to the Balkans, northern Iraq, and Somalia to succor refugees, feed the hungry, and otherwise alleviate suffering There are many reasons why countries come together to form multinational coalitions, whether it is meant to be on short term, long term, or upcoming dealings, restoring peace and order is basically the main reason. A long term coalition involves formation of an alliance that is not affected by future changes such as leadership takeover and will always exist as long as cases of uncertainty situations arise. For a multinational coalition to be effective there has to be a certain command chain that is clear to both parties. This is important especially in situations where the nations have to involve the army in their efforts of achieving desired peace and order. Decision making should be done by certain known individuals in order for the forces to move in one specific direction (Kahn 430). It might be objected that the betterment of humanity is not the only reason for alliance formation. Some countries may have hidden agendas in their alliances such as extracting of minerals from the developing countries or attacking a certain specific nation. However, it is only few nations which can form alliances for such selfish reasons. Another factor that can stimulate the multinational coalition to achieve its desired aims is by equitable sharing of responsibilities. Responsibilities may include war resources such as tankers and jets, the required human power and technology. In addition, responsibilities may vary depending with the coalition size. A big coalition makes it considerably difficult to manage and maintain clear effective strategies as compared to smaller coalition. The rules of engagement may also become difficult to be maintained with a large fighting force. One such situation was witnessed in March 2003 in Iraq when 14 Australian Hornet pilots disobeyed orders from commanding officers who were of American origin (Gordon and Bernard 91). These pilots were supposed to execute 40 bombs but they aborted the mission independently at the last minute of the operation. The pilots saw that the target points were not military targets and were occupied by large numbers of civilians. Therefore, they decided it was wise to abort the mission because it would have resulted to deaths of many civilians. Admittedly, not all countries in a multinational coalition do contribute all their best in to these groups. Some countries usually give very little than others while some even this as platforms to test some of their uncertain weapons. Nonetheless, most countries usually give out their best for the sake of peace. There are strengths brought about by multinational coalitions, but just like any union, there are limitations as well. Some of the strengths include sharing of skills and capabilities that any of the nations could not have on their own, sharing of supply and maintenance costs and finally boost in the unity and morale of the forces involved. On the other hand, the limitations include disagreements, fratricide incidences, and lack of trust. Weaknesses bring about poor intelligence sharing and the lack of commonality in the type of weapon to use. This paper will therefore look into these strength and limitations with a major focus on the experience of United State operations in Iraq and in other war coalitions. Strength Sharing Unique Skills and Capabilities: Different nations have different level of strength and capabilities with regard to their fighting forces. When forces from different nations combine hands to work together they interact and exchange views and skills. The United State was good in gathering of intelligence while other nations such as France did not have the ability to do so. Coming together of United State soldiers and the soldiers from France will mean there will be enough gathering of information. In this dynamic world, change is inevitable. The United State was depicted in most cases however to be rigid to change. The difficulties that America went through during the Iraq War were due to five major issues (Byman and Matthew 47). These are overreliance on their advanced technology, poor reading of the enemy, the rigidity to adapt to progresses that came up when they were in the battlefield, the scornful nature of President Bush’s Administration about nation building and the poor functioning of military structure of America. From these five issues, one is the rigidity to adapt to new issues and progresses that came up in the course of the battle. On the other hand, other nations that adopted the changes and learned new war techniques became successful. Admittedly, some nations in multinational coalitions are mean and won’t share their skills with others. During war time, there are few time to learn from others when both soldiers are busy fighting. However, it is only one or two nations that might show characteristics of meanness. The skills can not only be learned in the field but also by commanders and other government officials. Low supply and maintenance costs: Multinational coalitions usually involve many nations who bring together their military resources in order to achieve one common factor which may be peace. The troops that went to Iraq came from about 36 nations. All of the 36 nations involved contributed greatly to the achievement of the set targets. The contributions can be manpower, war resources and technological resources. Different forces shared the jets and other resources and the maintenance costs were low because of cost sharing. The manpower was around 300000 troops and America provided the largest number of more than 150000 troops (Finlan 201). The air forces that were involved in this Iraq mission came from ten nations. These nations were divided into two groups. One group was the Gulf Cooperation Council States which had nations such as Kuwait, Qatar Coalition, Saudi Arabia, The United Emirates and Bahrain. Another group represented the western nations which include Britain, Italy, The United States, Canada and France. Coalition is advantageous because considering that all these burdens were on one nation, it would have been very had for that nation to bear. The since the coalition is among many countries, there will be less incidences of interruption the peaceful co-existence between these nations. This point can be objected that some developing nations being involved in multinational coalitions can be negatively affected in terms of finance since the demand of the multinational agreements might be high. They might also be required to repair and maintain equipment that is not theirs. This increases expenses on these developing nations. However, only few of developing countries get involved in multinational coalitions. There is also consideration on the financial status about these developing nations. Boost on the unity and morale of the forces involved: The coming together of many nations means that there is increased strength, hence, more power. Forces, therefore, go into the battle fighting with the winning mentality. The multinational coalition in Iraq was successful because the troops had motivation that they were many and were fighting a weak enemy. Coordination at the Tactical level improved because of the close air forces integration. According to Finlan (194), US had to rely on partner aircraft during the war to eliminate large target using bombs. Different air forces from different nations provided capabilities that were unique and filled gaps that could not have been filled by one United State alone. The activities such as combined searching for lost or dead troops, combined rescue mission and exchanging of pilots between troops increased the peace among the nations involved. Hatred among the troops can undermine this unity and togetherness. This has created segregation and thus scattering the morale among the members. But such incidences have been solved by the troop members being reminded of their main aim of coming together. Limitations Disagreements among the Forces: Forces from some specific country may not want to be led by leaders from another country. They may end up disobey the orders of these leaders or even do the reverse of what they are commanding. An example of a disobedient case of soldiers from collating countries was experienced in Iraq in March 2003 when 14 Australian Hornet pilots disobeyed orders from commanding officers who were of American origin. These pilots were supposed to execute 40 bombs but they aborted the mission independently at the last minute of the operation. The pilots believed that the target points were not military targets and were occupied by large numbers of civilians. Another case of disagreement was experienced when Australia and Britain seriously disagreed with the United State about the use of airpower in Iraq. In this case, the United State may have saw that the best way of dealing with the situation is by using airstrike on the enemy forces (Gordon and Bernard 123-158). British and Australia on the other hand may have perceived that airstrikes would cause many deaths of civilians. If the operation would have been a sole United State mission it would have launched the airstrikes and maybe save the situation but since it was a coalition, all the parties involved must agree. On the other hand, since the operation was a multinational coalition, the intervention of Australia and British may have save the lives of many innocent civilians. This point of disagreement among forces can be objected that before a person is chosen as a leader of a certain troop, the troop members must have accepted him. There is also some protocol that is followed before giving an order to a troop member from a different country. The leader of that troop is usually given the information first before distributing it to other members. However, some of the leaders from other troops might have personal reasons to disagree with their seniors. This is because they are seeking fame or settling old scores. Language barriers: The difference in language used by collating countries may bring about communication barriers that may cause significant interference of operations. An instance of language barrier occurred when the Korean pilots who were to launch airstrike were not able to communicate in English. In this coalition, the dominant language was English and since the Korean pilots could not speak it, they were notable to explain their issues and concern well to other members of the coalition. Another instance of difference is when the French forces mostly followed their political instructions and directives and not the orders of the coalition leaders. Due to over relying on political directives, the coalition air planning were highly affected. The French chose to and flew to destinations that seemed conducive for them. Once the coalition had assigned targets forces from different countries, the French forces never followed these directives but decided on where to strike (Bush and Brent 481). This led to realignment and disruption of the coalition plan. One might object here that in this era, there are very few issues of language as a barrier to execution of intended goals. Technological advancement with the development of services that can translate a speech to a desired language should ensure little problems with languages. Some countries however, might love themselves and their culture so much that they may not want to learn any other language. This will therefore cause the language barrier to persist. Fratricide Incidences: This may also be referred to as lethal friendly fires. This incidence has caused many forces to die. A good example of such a case is when the United State of America aircrafts attacked one of the British regiment leading to many soldiers to die. This incident was condemned by both the British and American government. It also reduced the level of trust between the British and United State forces (Clawson 34). Conflict also rose thus hindering the achievement of the main aim which was restoring peace. Another such attack occurred when the South Korean train which was carrying civilian was attacked by the Royal Air Forces. Many citizens died as a result of this incidence. The lethal friendly fire is estimated to be the main cause of death of many American soldiers. Almost more than a quarter of casualties of America during the Gulf war resulted from friendly fire. After such fratricide incidences, the operations are usually halted. The conflicts have to be resolved among the conflicting parties. Mourning periods which were not part of the schedule have now to be included in the given tight schedules. These create more expenses in terms of the replacement of the dead soldiers, replacement of the wasted weapons and other requirements (Katagiri n.p). Effective communication need to be enhanced by the coalition partners in order to avoid such incidences like the lethal friendly fires which end up being deadly. Most of these friendly fires have hindered cohesion among soldiers on the ground. Friendly fires therefore need to be reduced in order for the operations of multinational coalitions to be successful. It might seem that most friendly fires are not always intended at killing members of the troops but it does kill them by accidents. Lack of Trust: which leads to poor intelligence sharing is another limitation that was experienced in the multinational coalition. The trust issue is not only experienced in the bases where the forces are but also among the specific governments. The lack of trust leads to disobeying of commands from the commanders. One common such incident is when the Australian Hornet pilots disobeyed orders from their American officers. This happened in Iraq in March 2003 when 14 Australian Hornet pilots disobeyed orders from commanding officers who were of American origin (Kahn 437). These pilots were supposed to execute 40 bombs but they aborted the mission independently at the last minute of the operation. The pilots believed that the target points were not military targets and were occupied by large numbers of civilians. Therefore, they saw it wise to abort the mission because it would have resulted to deaths of many civilians. The lack of trust led to nations forming the multinational coalition conflict about the type of weapons to use in their operations. A common example is when France, Britain and the United States disagreed on which weapons to use in order to avoid mass destruction. This differing happened when they had form a multinational coalition to fight Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. America France and Britain also differed on the issue of whether the Iraq government would or was capable of using weapons that were destructive in nature. The three nations had different views on this issue. The lack of trust among nations forming the multinational coalition meant that nations that were unable to collect intelligence could not be supplied with the required information by the country that had the ability to gather the information. An example is United State forces denied the French forces from accessing their intelligent. The forces hold on the information until they got political clearance to share the information with France and other members of the Multinational coalition (Clawson 41). The holding of intelligence until American forces received political okay of sharing it delayed taking of actions and meeting the common goal. Scarce trust among members of the multinational coalition is one big causes of derailing the accomplishment of the set goals of the coalition. It is true that for nations to come together to form a coalition, the element of trust must be existing among them. If nation don’t trust one another they can’t form a coalition together. The element of lack of trust however arises when these coalitions are formed or become depicted when they have been formed. Lack of commonality: especially in the type of weapon to use. Different nations have different types of war weapons that they use. Majority if not all of the superpowers do manufacture their own weapons. However, the modern war aircrafts that were being used by the coalition nations were modern with systems that were built in the West. This simplified matters for the commanders to use interchangeably. Apart from the aircrafts, other weapons had great differences. When these multinational nations came together it is difficult to choose on the type of weapon that would be most suitable for the task at hand (Byman and Matthew 55). A common example is when France, Britain and the United States disagreed on which weapons to use in order to avoid mass destruction. This kind of disagreement put most operations to a standstill. The differing countries are all superpowers and each one of them would want to have the lions share control of all the operations taking place in the specific coalitions. The conflict majorly arises on whether to use deadly weapons or not. Another issue is whether their enemy is going to use deadly weapons or not. The third issue that arises is the intensity of destruction especially when it comes to death of civilians that these weapons are going to cause. An example of coalition misunderstanding was during the Gulf War when Britain, France and the United State differed about the type of weapon that Iraq was possessing and would likely use. This meant that thorough intelligence had to be undertaken so as to shed light in this issue. Another case of misunderstanding on the type of weapon to use occurred when British criticized the United Nations airpower operations during the Korean War (Sick 22). This British criticism was not taken well however by the United States who saw no problem with the United Nation operation. It is clear from these cases that different nations have different perceptions about the types of weapons to use when they are in war. It’s true that few nations will have differences in the types of weapons they use. it is also true that no nation can go into a mission to save humanity with weapons that cause mass destruction. However, some nations with hidden objectives might use destructive weapons. Inclusion, it is clear that multinational coalitions, just like most union have its two sides; the strong and the weak. Some of the strengths include sharing of skills and capabilities that one nation could not have, sharing of supply and maintenance costs and the coalition boosts the unity and morale of the forces involved. The limitations include fratricide incidences and the lack of commonality in the type of weapon to use. For these coalitions to be successful, peaceful dialogs have to be undertaken to discuss the required terms and conditions. Bibliography Bush, George and Brent Scowcroft. A World Transformed. New York, NY: Knopf, 1998. Pages 450-492. Byman, Daniel, and Matthew, Waxman. The dynamics of coercion: American foreign policy and the limits of military might. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. 21-77 Clawson, Patrick. “The Continuing Logic of Dual Containment,” Survival 40, no. 1. 1998. Pages 33-47. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1093/survival/40.1.33?&userIP=198.7.238.40 Accessed on 26th April 2015 Finlan, Alastair. The Gulf War of 1991. New York, NY: Rosen Pub. 2009. 112-253 Gordon, Michael R. and Bernard E. Trainor. Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq. New York, NY: Pantheon Books, 2006. Pages 38-54, 62-74. Gordon, Michael R., and Bernard E. Trainor. The Generals’ War: The Inside Story of the Conflict in the Gulf. Boston: Little, Brown, 1995. Pages 75-101, 123-158, 408-432, 438-461. Kahn, Paul W., “Lessons for International Law from the Gulf War,” Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 335 Yale Law School. 1993. Pages 425-441. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/335 Accessed on 26th April 2015 Katagiri, Noriyuki. Adapting to win how insurgents fight and defeat foreign states in war. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 2015. Accessed on 26th April 2015 http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780812290134/. Sick, Gary. “Rethinking Dual Containment,” Survival 40, no. 1 (Spring 1998). Pages 5-32. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00396338.1998.9688522?&userIP=198.7.38.40& Accessed on 26th April 2015 Read More