1. ADMIN Phone numbers for emergency:
Country code is 976; city code is 11
Hotel
CDR Wohlschlegel- Room 513
Mr. John Miller (cel)
Mr. Bob Holub (cel)
Intro: This slide points out each PO will have its own situational setting.
Summary: For each PO, there will be unique political factors, unique diplomatic characteristics, and unique geographical, cultural language, and security characteristics. This is very key to understand and stresses the need for a very thorough mission analysis and commander's estimate early on in the PO planning process to identify each of these "unique" factors.
Three key planner awareness/operational realities as the CTF shapes its plan or approaches P.O. challenges:
1) support verses victory: military supports the larger political/civil mission, military is component of the larger effort. P.O. is neither enemy or military victory. Military sets conditions for UN, IO, NGO agencies to reach political, economic, social end states.
2) mission: revolves around establishing and maintaining safe, secure, stable environment within rules of engagement.
3) Civil-military planning and coordination: is the primary focus and these tasks are required to execute the mandate and achieve P.O. mission success.

2. MPAT Workshop Module Series
“The Basics”
Peace Operations
MPAT Workshop Module Series
This MPAT Workshop Module Series addresses the basics of Peace Operations. This module recognizes that there is no common doctrine for PO. As such, the intent of this module series is to act as basic starting point for multinational PO planning and operations.
This first basic PO module is based upon: (1) MPAT nations' input, (2) the Multinational Forces Standing Operation Procedures (MNF SOP) developed by the MPAT nations, (3) numerous doctrinal publications from United Nations (UN) documents, NATO documents, and national doctrinal publications, and collaboration/assistance from COE DMHA, U.S. Army PKI, EPIC/NPGS, and JFCOM.

3. Peace Operations Workshop Module Series
Module 1 : THE BASICS
Module 2 : PEACE OPERATIONS REALITIES
AND OPERATIONAL MODEL
Module 3 : PEACE OPERATIONS
“WORKING DOCTRINE”
Module 4 : CTF COMMAND AND CONTROL OPTIONS
AND CTF HQs TEMPLATE FOR PO
Slide 3:
Intro:
This MPAT Workshop Module Series addresses the basics of Peace Operations. This module recognizes that there is no common doctrine for PO. As such, the intent of this module series is to act as basic starting point for multinational PO planning and operations.
This first basic PO module is based upon: (1) MPAT nations' input, (2) the Multinational Forces Standing Operation Procedures (MNF SOP) developed by the MPAT nations, (3) numerous doctrinal publications from United Nations (UN) documents, NATO documents, and national doctrinal publications, and collaboration with COE DMHA, U.S. Army PKI, EPIC/NPGS, and JFCOM.
Shown here is the six modules contained within this Workshop Module Series. Each module builds upon the previous one so it is recommended that one review them in the order shown on the slide.
Module 5 : PO – KEY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Module 6 : PEACE OPERATIONS – CTF
PLANNING PROCESS
RETURN TO PREFACE

4. Key Terminology MNF: Multinational Force – “Broad Overarching Term”
The entire organization of nations, participating forces, and support based upon “shared interests”. Includes Strategic Military Planning HQ
Two Types of MNF Operations:
Coalition: Ad-Hoc / Crisis Based (Ex: INTERFET- East Timor)
Combined: Alliance / Treaty Based (Ex: NATO or UNC / CFC - Korea)
CTF: Coalition / Combined Task Force
Coalition TF (CTF): Ad-Hoc / Crisis Oriented
Combined TF (CTF): Alliance / Treaty Based (predetermined guidelines and / or contingency plans present)
Cover definitions of MNF and the two types of MNF operations. Definitions on the slide.

5. Peace Operations “There are no standard Peace Operations”JP
Elements of National & International Power will be used – not just one dimension:
Diplomatic
Economic
Information
Military
Psycho-Social
Intro: This slide stresses that there is no such thing as a "standard Peace Operation".  
Summary: Each PO is unique and requires all of the elements of national power must be applied to address the PO crisis. It is NOT just a military operation. It is multi-dimensional at all times !
Military forces can temporize, maintain situation, reduce levels of violence, induce compliance and support other agencies operations, but not the solution… military endstate works toward political endstate and for the civil-military effort the military is in support role.

6. Peace Operations Challenges
Each Peace Operation will have its own unique situational setting
Unique political factors
Unique diplomatic characteristics
Unique geographical, cultural, language, and security characteristics
Intro: This slide points out each PO will have its own situational setting.
Summary: For each PO, there will be unique political factors, unique diplomatic characteristics, and unique geographical, cultural language, and security characteristics. This is very key to understand and stresses the need for a very thorough mission analysis and commander's estimate early on in the PO planning process to identify each of these "unique" factors.
Three key planner awareness/operational realities as the CTF shapes its plan or approaches P.O. challenges:
1) support verses victory: military supports the larger political/civil mission, military is component of the larger effort. P.O. is neither enemy or military victory. Military sets conditions for UN, IO, NGO agencies to reach political, economic, social end states.
2) mission: revolves around establishing and maintaining safe, secure, stable environment within rules of engagement.
3) Civil-military planning and coordination: is the primary focus and these tasks are required to execute the mandate and achieve P.O. mission success.

7. Who Executes Peace Operations?
United Nations (UN) – 2 Types
UN Sanctioned/Authorized operations (Regional Organizational Led (Combined) or Multinational Led (Coalition – Lead Nation concept)
UN Sponsored/Mandated operation (UN Chain of Command – UN led)
Regional Organization (Combined) Led (NATO, OAU, etc.)
Non-UN Alliance / Treaty based
Multinational Organization (Coalition) Led
Lead Nation Concept (Non-UN)
Multinational Crisis Action Planning Ops
Ad-hoc based on emerging crisis / No regional framework is present to address crisis
Intro: This slide outlines the three primary organizations that executes peace operations.
 Summary: It is key to recognize the three primary organizations that executes PO and that other organizations than the UN can execute PO. It should be noted that ALL are some form of multinational force (more than one nation involved).
The three primary organizations are: the UN, regional organizations (combined organizations), and multinational organizations (coalition organizations).
  The UN can execute PO using the Lead nation concept, this is called a UN Sanctioned / Authorized operation. In this type of UN PO, the UN designates a Lead nation for the execution of POs, using the Lead Nation chain of command. The second manner by which the UN executes PO is a UN Sponsored / Mandated operation, where the UN executes the PO using a UN chain of command. The key distinction is an UN Sanctioned / Authorized operation does not use a UN chain of command for execution of the PO; whereas, a UN Sponsored / Mandated uses the UN chain of command for execution.
  The second type or organization that can execute PO is a regional organization. An example would be a NATO operation (treaty based operation) based PO.
The third type of organization that can execute PO is a multinational / coalition operation. An example would be Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai (or simply called MFO) which was an ad-hoc group of nations that came together to supervise truce provisions that arouse out of the crisis.
The last two types of organizations "do not" require UN resolutions / mandates to carry out operations and can be considered NON-UN operations. However, in many instances such operations seek UN resolutions / mandates "after the fact" to gain international legitimacy (but this is not required).
Note: There are significant differences in the Command Relationships, Control, and Coordination Processes for the above PO options – see Module 4

8. Broad Categories of Peace Operations
Peacekeeping Operations (PKO)
Peace Enforcement Operations (PEO)
Note –Terminology Differences: Many variations in terminology.
UN commonly refers to Peace Operations as Peacekeeping and also uses the term Peace Support Operations (PSO) at times.
NATO uses the term PSO.
Other nations use variations of terminology (based upon political and operational implications / factors).
The MNF SOP will use the overarching term of Peace Operations with two broad categories of operations as outlined above for clarity in mission planning.
Intro: This slide outlines the two broad categories of PO.
Summary: The two broad categories of PO are Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) and Peace Enforcement (PEO). It also should be noted that there are many variations in definitions of PO operations. The UN commonly refers to all PO as Peace Keeping and sometimes refers to them as Peace Support Operations (PSO). NATO uses the term PSO and has a broader definition of PO that includes humanitarian operations and other forms of peace operations. Also, other terminology is used by other nations based upon political and operational considerations. Bottom line: many doctrines and terminologies are used, with very little consistency.
This MPAT Workshop Module series will use the two broad categories of PKO and PEO for PO for clarity in mission planning and to separate them from humanitarian operations and other forms of PO support missions.

9. Peacekeeping Operations (PKO)
Purpose: Designed to monitor and facilitate implementation of an agreement (cease fire, truce, and other related agreements) and support diplomatic efforts to reach a long-term political settlement.
Intro: This slide outlines the definition of PKO
Summary: The key points in this definition are that PKO are designed to monitor and facilitate implementation of an agreement, and that PKO are undertaken with the FULL CONSENT of all major parties to a dispute.
Monitor, facilitate, and consent are the key parameters for PKO.
Key Factor: Undertaken with consent of all major parties to a dispute.

10. Peace Enforcement Operations (PEO)
Purpose: Use of necessary means up to and including military force to compel compliance with resolutions or sanctions designed to establish security, peace and order.
Key Factor: Application of appropriate means, military force or clear threat of military force to compel compliance of parties involved.
Intro: Now lets turn to the second category of PO, that of Peace Enforcement Operations or PEO. This slide outlines the definition of PEO.
Summary: The key points of this definition are that "use of necessary means up to and including military forces TO COMPEL compliance" of resolution / mandate" is authorized for the establishment of security, peace, and order.
Note that "consent" is not required by the major parties to the dispute. Further, the "threat of military force" or the "actual use of military force" to force compliance with a resolution / mandate is inherent in PEO.

11. Distinction Between PKO and PEO
Three main distinctions are:
Consent
Use of Force
Impartiality
Intro: The following two slides provides further distinctions between PKO and PEO and highlight the critical three doctrinal principles that are the foundation for determining what type of Peace Operations is present in a situation.
Summary: The three main principles that separates PKO and PEO are that of "consent, use of force, and impartiality". These principles are further addressed in the following slide.

12. Distinction between PKO and PEO
Principal
Factors
PKO
PEO
Consent
All parties consent (support PKO goals)
Partial or no consent by parties (little or no support for PEO goals)
Use of Force
(restraint)
Self defense only
Compel or coerce compliance with established rules of engagement
Impartiality does not denote neutrality, it is, however, a constant and may be applied as follows:
Intro: This slide provides a “snapshot” outline of the distinctions between PKO and PEO.
Summary:
In terms of consent, it is required for PKO. However, within PEO “partial or no consent” can be expected.
In terms of force (restraint) PKO uses only "self defense". In PEO, the resolution or mandate must allow for the ability to "compel or coerce" compliance with the resolution / mandate.
In terms of impartiality, PKO requires that all sides be treated equally and fairly, applying the mandate without prejudice.
In PEO, impartiality is focused on the resolution / mandate ... enforcing it equally and fairly. Impartiality pertains to the agreement / treaty at hand ... the parties to the dispute are expected to abide by the resolution / mandate and if this cannot be attained by peaceful means, then "force" is used to compel the parties to abide by the resolution / mandate.
PKO - impartiality by use of peaceful means.
PEO - impartiality by use of forceful means (or threat of force)
Principal Factors
PKO
PEO
Impartiality
Treat all sides equally and fairly
Apply mandate without prejudice
When necessary, enforce the mandate on violators
Principled Impartiality**
**May be considered as principled impartiality

13. Peace Operations Activities
Mutually
Supportive
Peace Operations
Peace Keeping
Operations designed to monitor and facilitate implementation of an agreement
Peace Enforcement
Operations designed
to compel compliance with resolutions or sanctions designed to establish security, peace and order
Military Operations can support Diplomatic Efforts (three areas)
Preventive Diplomacy
Diplomatic actions taken in advance to avert a crisis
Peacemaking
Process of diplomacy, mediation, negotiation, or other forms of peaceful settlement
Peace Building
Post-conflict actions, predominately diplomatic, economic, and security related that strengthen and rebuild governmental infrastructure and institutions
Intro: This depicts the big picture of peace operations on the left side of slide and peace support/diplomatic actions on the right side of slide. They are mutually supportive, often you have a mixture of these acivities, and several can occur simultaneously/concurrently. The "diplomatic" operations will operate "concurrently" with Peace Operations. It should be noted that a CTF will not normally be stood up for military operations "in support" diplomatic efforts. CTFs are stood up for PKO and PEO.
PKO operations monitor and facilitate implementation for an agreement and support diplomatic efforts to reach long term political settlement. All parties consent.
PEO compel compliance with enforcement actions with application of force within ROE.
The diplomatic efforts which the military could support include:
1) Preventive Diplomacy: is pre-crisis focus diplomatic actions to avert or limit a crisis.
2) Peacemaking: Diplomatic activities conducted after commencement of conflict aimed at establishing a ceasefire, or peaceful settlement. Includes mediation, reconciliation, diplomatic pressure, isolation, sanctions, etc.
3) Peacebuilding: diplomatic, economic, social & security measures aimed at strengthening political settlements of a conflict, consolidate peace, support reconstruction/rebuilding infrastructure. 
Summary: It is essential to understand that these operations are not "mutually exclusive"; quite the opposite, they are mutually supportive. PKO / PEO operations can be ongoing while military support of Peace Making (mediation / negotiation) and Peace Building (security assistance, rebuilding infrastructure, etc) are being being conducted. This perspective supports a continuum of operations for Peace Operations that can be mixed and executed simultaneously to support the political/diplomatic end states (thus providing for more flexibility in planning and execution).
Peace Operations are normally interwoven with one another…PKO being executed with Preventive Diplomacy and Peacemaking ongoing; or PKO and PEO could be ongoing in same CTF AO (but in different regions of country).

14. Legal Basis for Peace Operations
UN Charter – Resolutions/Mandates based on the UN Charter as a whole primarily Chapters VI, II, and VIII
VI – Pacific Settlement of Disputes – Addresses peaceful means
VII – Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of Peace, and Acts of Aggression –Addresses enforcement actions
VIII – Regional Arrangements – Regional arrangements to maintain peace & security
Intro: This slide shows the legal basis for Peace Operations.
Summary: Legitimacy can be in the form of UN Resolutions / Mandates or Other International Agreements outside the UN.
>It is key to note that under the UN Charter, Chap VI, Chap VII, and Chap VIII are the basis for UN Peace Operations resolution and mandates.
==Chap VI normally refers to PKO, though this term is not in the UN Charter. This addresses the "peaceful means" of monitoring, facilitating, and consent of the willing within peace operations.
  ==Chap VII normally refers to PEO, though this term is not in the UN Charter. This addresses enforcement actions to restore and maintain peace, and address breaches of peace, or acts of aggression.
  ==Chap VIII addresses regional arrangements by which peace and security can be maintained.
>Peace Operations are also legitimized by International Treaties / Multinational Agreements and Conventions among the consent of the willing (this does not necessarily require a UN Resolution / Mandate.
 >Lastly, Peace Operations are legitimized by National Constitution and Declarations. Normally, such legitimization is combined with International Treaties or UN Resolution / Mandates. These can play a very important role in what missions a specific country can perform, for example some nations may not be able to conduct Chapter VII enforcement.
International Treaties/Multinational Agreements/Conventions
National Constitutions/Declarations/ Resolutions/Statutory Authorizations

15. East Timor (PKO & PEO) Example #2
Title: UN Missions to East Timor
UNAMET—UN Observer Mission (PKO)
INTERFET - UN Sanctioned/Authorized – Multinational Coalition -- Lead Nation (PEO)
UNTAET - UN Sponsored/Mandated – UN Led (PEO / PKO / Peace Building)
Mission: Multiple mandates beginning with Peacekeeping and culminating in a Peace Enforcement mission with transition to civil administration.
Years: 1999-present
Nations: More than 40
Mission Background: East Timorese independence vote set off a spasm of violence and destruction. UN Peacekeepers were quickly isolated. UN Security Council then sanctioned/authorized an international force to restore security.
Intro: The next three slides provides another example of a PEO. It should be noted that “multiple types” of organizations operated in East Timor.
Summary:  The key points of this PEO was that initially it was a UN sponsored / mandated mission (UNAMET – UN Observers / PKO). Then due to expanded violence, the UN authorized a Lead Nation operation (UN sanctioned / authorized PEO) under the lead of Australia which was called INTERFET. Once order and stability was achieved “a transition” from INTEFET to UNTAET was accomplished, putting the PKO mission back under the UN chain of command (UN sponsored / mandated). Thus, operations went from a UN chain of command, to a Lead Nation chain of command (coalition) , and then back to a UN chain of command with transition periods between each.

16. UN MISSIONS TO EAST TIMOR ADDITIONAL MISSION BACKGROUND
UN assistance to E. Timor conducted in three phases:
UNAMET— Referendum monitoring UN Observer Mission. 11 June-25 Oct 1999 UN Sponsored/Mandated – UN led (PKO)
INTERFET—Peace Enforcement with Australia as lead nation. Ch. VII 15 Sept Feb UN Sanctioned/Authorized (Multinational Coalition – Lead Nation Concept) (PEO)
UNTAET— Peace Enforcement, Peacekeeping, and Peace Building. 25 Oct 1999 to Present Date. UN Sponsored (UN Led)
Intro: This slide shows the UN missions that were conducted in East Timor.
Summary: Note that two UN missions were under a “UN Chain of Command” (UN sponsored / mandated) and one UN mission was executed using the “Lead Nation” concept (UN sanctioned / authorized).
“There could be casualties. And the Australian public should understand that.
It is a serious, dangerous operation.” Australian Prime Minister John Howard, August 1999
Note that UN Peace Operations in this region overlapped in time and included multiple mandates.

17. Timeline of a Peace Operation Pacific Region—East Timor
1999-Present
UN authorizes
INTERFET;
Australia is
Lead Nation (PE Chap VII)
**15 Sept 99
INTERFET UN Resolution**
Transition
UNTAET
authorized to build internal capacity once order is restored
25 Oct 99
UNTAET UN Resolution
Autonomy
Ratified
30 Aug 99
**23 Feb 00
UNTAET assume responsibility **
Security Restored;
INTERFET hands
over to UNTAET
May 02
Nationhood
Declared
Observer
Mission/Vote
Referendum
11 June 99
UNMISET
May 20, 2002
Peacekeeping
Mission
(UN
Mandated/
Sponsored-UN Led Operation)
Rioting
Begins
Transition
Peace Enforcement
Mission
(UN Sanctioned/Authorized – Multinational Coalition–
Lead Nation)
Peace
Enforcement / Keeping
Peace Building Mission
(UN Sponsored/ Mandated – UN Led Operation)
Intro: This slide shows the time line of the East Timor Peace Operations.
Summary: The key points is the transition between a UN chain of command operations (UN sponsored / mandated) to Lead Nation chain of command (UN sanctioned / authorized), then back to a UN chain of command again once the stability and order were established by INTERFET under PEO measures. Note that PKO, PEO, and other diplomatic peace operations actions were operating simultaneously.
In May 02, East Timor Nationhood was established.
This successful operation underscored that the UN can undertake PKO (monitor and facilitate the agreements of consenting parties); whereas PEO are better taken on by a Lead Nation (or Regional Organization) that have a military chain of command that can carry out "combat operations" to "enforce" the resolutions / mandates -- or PEO.
This once again underscores the critical aspect of early-on mission analysis, commanders estimate, and on-going contingency planning for Peace Operations. In turn, this provides the foundation for determining the "chain of command" that can best carry out the Peace Operations mission - a most critical aspect of PO planning. This will be further addressed in Module 4 of this MPAT Workshop Module Series.
UN Mission to E. Timor
(UNAMET)
UN Transitional Administration
in E. Timor (UNTAET)

18. Complex Emergencies (Contingencies)
Since 1990, Peace Operations have moved from interstate conflicts to intrastate. Complex Emergencies are now the norm
Failed states - total breakdown of government institution & infrastructures
Term used to describe Humanitarian Operations (concurrent with PO) that have the following dimensions:
A complex, multi-party, intra-state conflict resulting in a humanitarian disaster which might constitute multi-dimensional risks or threats to regional and international security.
Peace Operations now must be executed along with the challenges of rebuilding societies, re-establishing institutions, promoting good governance.
Restoring infrastructure, economy, security, and reducing human suffering.
Intro: We now turn to the realities of Peace Operations within the 1990s. Peace Operations are more complex and have changed in nature.
Summary: Since 1990, conflicts have moved from "intrastate" to "interstate" are are more complex in nature. Now, PO are based upon failed states and total breakdowns of government institutions / infrastructures. This has become the "norm".
>The term used to denote these operations is “Complex Emergencies” (or Complex Contingencies). It describes the simultaneous requirement for Peace Operations and Humanitarian Operations.
>Thus, in planning PO, planning for humanitarian operations are coequal in priority.
>Military planning must identify the civil-military tasks required for achievement of the political - diplomatic end states. Military planners must identify the "support tasks" for PO and for humanitarian ops. In Complex Emergencies they become mutually supportive.
The military may have the lead for initial stability and security in PEOs, but after this phase, military operations will be "in support" of larger civil - military tasks, and the military will NOT be the lead for such operations. This is the nature of Complex Emergencies.

19. Peace Operations Realities
Support vs. Victory: CTF Commanders and Staff are required to understand the following realities of Peace Operations
The military is always in support of the larger political / civil mission (military is a component of a larger effort).
There is neither an enemy nor a military victory. Military task is to set conditions to enable other agencies to achieve political end state.
Military can:
Temporize
Maintain situation
Reduce levels of violence
Induce compliance
Basic Mission: The military mission will revolve around establishing or maintaining a safe, secure, and stable environment.
Civil-Military Planning / Coordination: Identification of the civil-military tasks required by the mandate
Military endstate is part of the overall process to work towards accomplishing political endstate.
Military mission is to establish and maintain safe, secure, and stable environment within ROE to create environment to support UN, IO, NGO efforts to implement the mandate.

20. OPERATIONAL MODEL UN / IOs / NGOs Overall Mandate Missions MILITARY
CTF
Deploy-Mandate-Transition-Re-deploy
Military Mission
MILITARY
OPERATIONS
SUPPORT
OPERATIONS
CRISIS
STABILIZATION
DIPLOMATIC
LIFE
SUPPORT
LIFE
SAVING
ECONOMIC
& SOCIAL
CIVIL
UN / IOs / NGOs
Overall Mandate Missions
Ref: COE

21. Doctrinal Challenge No United Nations Peace Operations doctrine
The most up-to-date Peace Operations doctrine is in the MNF SOP. It was cooperatively developed by MPAT, US Army PKI, UN, COE, JFCOM, EPIC, and NPS personnel.
No United Nations Peace Operations doctrine
Important to study P.O. history, especially recent decade.
Use Bharimi report has good summary of history, failures and recommendations for future operations and UN improvement.
The MNF SOP uses NATO AJP doctrinal factors for P.O. planning. These factors capture the complexity and multi-dimensional nature of complex emergencies and the realities of P.O. missions today.
NATO Doctrine comes closest to addressing the issues (ATP-3.4.1)

22. Doctrinal Principles of PO
NATO ratified list of PSO/PO Fundamentals.
Civil Military Cooperation
Objectives
Security
Unity of Effort
Legitimacy
Impartiality
Consent
Perseverance
Freedom of Movement
Credibility
Flexibility
Use of Force
Transparency
Mutual Respect
Restraint
Other principals must also be considered while planning and executing peace operations.
Situation dependent.
Many nations have reached consensus over the years on the fundamentals of peace operations. The NATO list depicted here, comes the closest to capturing this consensus. This was ratified by all NATO participating countries and is used by PFP and other non-NATO but interested countries like S Africa.
Here one set of fundamentals apply to all peace operations. This is holding with a long standing concepts since 1948.
The judgement of CCTF and those responsible for planning and execution of peace operations will determine the weight and the application of each principle.
Ref: PKI

23. Key Concept #1 Within the CTF there are two chains of command:
Respective NATIONAL Chain of Command
CTF MULTINATIONAL Chain of Command
Briefer Notes: Stress this is a very critical fact to recognize in ALL MULTINATIONAL operations.
There are always two chains for command within a Multinational Effort. A nation does not give up national sovereignty or national command of its military forces by joining or participating in a multinational operation.
Further, within the “multinational” chain of command, there will be some form of command, control, or coordination procedures that military forces will operate under and by which the Commander of the CTF can execute missions based upon established “commander authorities”.
Thus, two chains of command are always operating within a Multinational command.
This “fact” can work against unity of effort if not recognized, planned for, and respected by all participants.

24. Command and Control Relationship Concepts
Operational Control (OPCON): Command authority to organize and employ forces, assign tasks, designate objectives, and give authoritive direction necessary to accomplish the mission
Tactical Control (TACON): More restrictive command authority that is limited to the detailed control of movements or maneuvers within a given operational area (AO) necessary to accomplish assigned missions or tasks.
Shown here are the three fundamental “command and control” relationships that are “desired” within a CTF command.
Briefing Points: Outline definitions for each in your brief.
In some situations, such relations may not be possible due to “concerns about foreign command” of a nation’s forces.
The options for addressing and solving such concerns will be addressed later in this brief.
Support: Command authority for support relationships to assist in the coordination and direction of MNF logistical planning, coordination, and control / direction (types will be covered later in brief)

25. Categories of Support (A Form of Command Relationship)
General Support
That support which is given to the supported force as a whole rather than to particular subdivision thereof.
Mutual Support
That support which units render each other against an enemy because of their assigned tasks, their position relative to each other and to the enemy, and their inherent capabilities
Direct Support
A mission requiring a force to support another specific force and authorizing to answer directly the supported force’s request for assistance
Close Support
That action of the supporting force against targets or objectives that are sufficiently near the supported force as to require detailed integration or coordination of the supporting actions with the fire, movement or other actions of the supported force.
The Support concepts outlined on this chart are a ‘form’ of command relations that many Multinational efforts fail to recognize and use.
Each level above has distinct and separate meanings that will require expanded definitions within the development of Plans for support relationships.
These are “one more tool” to assist the Commander of the CTF in his quest for effective mission accomplishment.
Briefing Notes: Cover the categories as required and desired given the time for the brief. Recommend DO NOT GET INTO THE DETAILS of each, just provide OVERVIEW or let the slide stand by itself with a “brief overview”

26. Peace Operations Command / Control / Coordination (Strategic and Operational Levels)
Options:
Multinational Lead Nation (Coalition, Non–UN Operation)
Multinational Lead Nation – Modified (Coalition, Non-UN Operation)
Regional Organization Led (Combined, Non-UN Operation)
UN Sanctioned/Authorized – Coalition, Lead Nation Led or Combined, Regional Organization Led
UN Sponsored/Mandated – UN Led
These are the primary options for peace operations C2; we will discuss these now.

27. Option 1: Multinational Lead Nation (Coalition, Non–UN Operation)
Participating
Nation #2
(US National Authority)
Lead Nation NCA
(Nation #1)
(AS National Authority)
Participating
Nation #3
(ROK National Authority)
Supported Strategic
Commander
(CDF)
Supporting Strategic
Commander
(Combatant Commander)
Supporting Strategic
Commander
(ROK JCS)
CCC
Commander Coalition
Task Force
(CCTF)
Consultation /
Coordination
National
Command Element (NCE)
National
Command Element (NCE)
Collaboration/
Support
CCC
Participating
US Forces
Participating
AS Forces
Participating
ROK Forces
Legend:
Support Guidance:
AS Forces have
Priority of effort as the
supported cmdr with
US, ROK, and others
supporting.
Strategic Guidance OPCON or TACON
And Support
National Command National Command
Theater
CCC = Coalition Coordination Center

28. Option 2: Multinational Lead Nation – Modified
(Coalition, Non–UN Operation)
Nation #1
Lead Nation
Supported Strategic
Commander
Consultation /
Coordination
Note: National
Command of
respective
forces is the
same as Option
1 for nations
under OPCON
of CCTF – thru
NCEs at CTF Hq
(Not Shown)
Note: Used
when foreign
command
of a Nation’s
Forces is
a major
concern.
Supporting Strategic
Commander
Collaboration/
Coordination
Participating
Nation #1
Commander
CCTF
Coalition Coordination
Center
Participating
Nation #1
Participating
Nation #2
Participating
Nation #3
Legend:
Strategic Guidance OPCON or TACON
And Support
National Command National Command,
Theater or COCOM
Coordination

29. Option 3: Regional Organization Led (Combined, Non-UN)
Command and Control Arrangements
Based upon Alliances and Treaties
National
Command HQ for US
National
Command HQ for ROK
Commander Coalition
Task Force
(CCTF)
National
Command Element (NCE)
National
Command Element (NCE)
Participating
US Forces
Participating
AS Forces
Participating
ROK Forces
Legend:
Strategic Guidance OPCON or TACON
And Support
National Command

30. SRSG Option 4a: UN Sanctioned/Authorized -
“Coalition, Lead Nation Led “
Legend:
Lead Nation
Strategic Direction
and Guidance
Strategic Coord
UN SG
SRSG
Administrative component
Humanitarian Component
Police Component
Human Rights Component
Election Component
Lead Nation Concept
(same as Option 1
But under UN legitimacy – UN Operation)
Observer Force

31. SRSG Option 4b: UN Sanctioned/Authorized -
“Combined, Regional Organization Led “
Legend:
Lead Nation
Strategic Direction
and Guidance
Strategic Coord
UN SG
SRSG
Administrative component
Humanitarian Component
Police Component
Human Rights Component
Election Component
Regional Organization Concept
(same as Option 2
But under UN legitimacy – UN Operation)
Observer Force

32. SG Option 5: UN Sponsored/ Mandated – UN Led UN Security Council SRSG
National Authorities
For Each Country SG
SRSG
Administrative Component
CTF - Military Force
Humanitarian Component
UN mandate
UN led
National command thru CTF
Observer Force
Police Component
Legend:
National
Command
Strategic Guidance
Direction & Coordination
Strategic Guidance/Legitimacy
Human Rights Component
Election Component

33. Key CTF Planning Documents
Security Council Resolution (UNSCR)
Peace Agreement
Mandate
Status of Forces/Mission Agreement (SOFA/SOMA)
Terms of Reference
Rules of Engagement (ROE)
Memoranda of Understandings (MOUs)
Consolidated Appeal Process (CAP)
Not all of the documents will be present for all operations. The force commander and staff must be aware of all of these and the implication if some are not forthcoming.
Note: These are living documents than need continuous management
Ref: PKI

34. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR)
United Nations Security Council (UN SC) passes Resolutions that establishes the basis for the Peace Operation.
Peace Operations Resolutions normally contain two sections: First part contains political statements from the UN SC and the second part outlines the Mandate for the Peace Operation.
UNSCR establish the basis for Peace operations outlining political and strategic guidance, and contains the mandate.
For non-UN operation the multinational agreement or regional organization: Initiating Directive (combined) takes the place of the UNSCR.

35. Peace Agreement
CTF Planners need to refer to any and all Peace Agreements agreed to among the parties to the conflict (past and working agreements).
Mandates for Peace Operations will normally refer to these Agreements and form a foundation for consent within the operation.
Referral to peace agreements will give a full appreciation of the crisis and crisis history.

36. Mandate
The Mandate is the central document for outlining the scope of the operation.
The Mandate is either contained in a UN SC Resolution, an Initiating Directive from a Regional Organization or Multinational Organization, or can be included in Warning Orders and OPORDs for the operation.
Primary document
has the mission and scope of peace operations
Should be clearly written, free of political overtones, with clearly stated endstates…if not planners/CTF should press for clarification.

37. Mandate Requirements
It is critical that a clear end state be contained in the Mandate
Also establishes the following:
ROE guidance
Legitimacy for the operation
Nature of the operation
Strategic Objectives and Political / Military end states
Strategic Mission and Tasks
Freedoms, constraints, and restraints
Expected Duration
Logistics and key supporting aspects
Civil-Military coordinating mechanisms
Here is what you can expect to find in the mandate…obviously a key document for mission analysis
CTF Key Planning Point:
The Mandate is the strategic guidance for the CTF Commander. It forms the foundation for
the initial Mission Analysis and follow on Commander’s Estimate. The Mandate
must be complete in its guidance and clear in its mission parameters (if not, planners must
seek out additional guidance and clearly establish the mission parameters).

38. Status of Forces/Mission Agreement (SOFA/SOMA)
Negotiated agreements that establish the detailed legal status of PO forces – critical document.
Negotiated by the UN, Regional Organization, or Multinational Organization for the CTF at National levels (not a CTF action, but CTF planners may participate in development with higher headquarters).
Negotiated with the Host Nation and / or Affected Nation and are considered an International Agreement
Negotiated agreements that establishes the legal status of CTF forces within AO.
SOFA/SOMA needs to be in place prior to deployment of forces to AO.
Australia strategic HQs negotiated with each nation to establish as lead nation for East Timor.

39. Terms of Reference (TOR)
Developed to govern implementation of the PO
Based upon the situation and Mandate; may be subject to approval by the parties to the dispute (addresses details of PO)
Describes the mission, command relationships, organization, logistics, accounting procedures, coordination and liaison, and responsibilities or personnel assigned or detailed to the PO force (flexible document).
Normally written at the national level (UN, Regional or Multinational Strategic HQ) however, the potential CTF Commanders and staff may assist in initial development and need to be involved as amendments are developed
Written to govern the implementation of the peace operation and the mandate.
Situation dependent and subject to approval of the parties to the dispute.
As you can see on slides, several key topics are covered including mission, command relations, logistics, accounting personnel responsibilities, etc.
TORs serve as formal record of the major agreements for peace operations.

40. Rules of Engagement (ROE)
Directives that delineate the circumstances and limitations under which CTF forces respond to, initiate or continue engagement with other forces or elements
Define when and how force may be used
Initially ROE will be established by the National Strategic / UN level of planning. However, the CTF Commanders must provide continual assessments of the threat and recommendations for adjustments as required.
ROE can make the difference between success and failure
Requires ongoing contingency planning and assessment
ROE are directives that delineate the:
Circumstances and limitations under which CTF forces initiate or continue engagement with other forces.
Defines when and how force may be required.
ROE should be in place prior to deployment of forces to CTF AO. Contingency ROE needs to be developed, coordinated, and pre-approved.

41. Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)
Are used to establish agreements within the CTF forces as required
Flexible tool to establish formal agreements as required (can supplement and / or replace TORs).
Can be used between nations or for the CTF force as a whole to establish procedures or processes.
Existing MOUs need to be identified during the CTF’s activation to determine applicability for current Mandate (can greatly assist in interoperability challenges)
Slide is self explanatory.
Establish agreements as requried.
Multinational, bilateral, CTF/MNF-wide
Determine what existing MOUs are present and applicable.

42. CAP: Consolidated Appeals Process
Legal Basis
General Assembly Resolution 46/182
1994 Inter-Agency Standing Committee approved CAP Guidelines
Produces CHAP: Common Humanitarian Action Plan
Presentation of possible scenarios
Sectors to be addressed
Criteria for Prioritization
Relationship with other assistance programs
Statement of humanitarian principles
Long term goals
Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) are UN tool to coordinate and bring to bear resources on a crisis for HA, DR, and PO.
The end result of the CAP is the CHAP document which integrates the IO, NGO humanitarian action plans in the AO.

43. Congratulations!
QUESTIONS?