Complementary Effect

StrategyResearchProject PROVIDING COMPLEMENTARY
EFFECT: ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN
THEATER AND HIGHER
ECHELON COMMANDS
BY
COLONEL KEVIN B. MARCUS
United States Army
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A:
Approved for Public Release.
Distribution is Unlimited.
This SRP is submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements of the Master of Strategic Studies Degree.
The views expressed in this student academic research
paper are those of the author and do not reflect the
official policy or position of the Department of the
Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013-5050
USAWC CLASS OF 2011

The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle State Association
of Colleges and Schools, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The Commission on
Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the
Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the
data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing
this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-
4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently
valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)
11-03-2011
2. REPORT TYPE
Strategy Research Project
3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Providing Complementary Effect: Roles and Responsibilities Between
Theater and Higher Echelon Commands
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)
Colonel Kevin B. Marcus
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
Colonel Thomas P. Reilly
Department of Military Strategy, Planning, and Operations
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
NUMBER
9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
U.S. Army War College
122 Forbes Avenue
122 Forbes Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
122 Forbes Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Distribution A: Unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
As successful as the U.S. joint force has been in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s
“Capstone Concept for Joint Operations” (CCJO) outlines the need for change in order to sustain this success in
future warfare. One key area of change should be in the roles and relationships between flag officer headquarters.
U.S., Alliance and Coalition operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are characterized by multiple command
headquarters inside and outside the theaters of operation. This current situation is likely to be replicated in future
conflicts. Ensuring that each echelon, and each headquarters, provides truly complementary effects is critical to
future success. This paper recommends actions for those headquarters out of theater that, once adopted, can
ensure that the joint force gains added value from those headquarters out of theater supporting the theater
commander. The CCJO’s precepts for future joint operations establish the framework for change and an
examination of the existing NATO and U.S. chains of command for Afghanistan establish a start point for that
change. Finally, the paper concludes with a series of recommendations to greater focus the efforts these multiple
echelons of command.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Command and Control, Unity of Effort, Irregular Warfare, Close Air Support
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION
OF ABSTRACT
18. NUMBER
OF PAGES
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT
UNCLASSIFED
b. ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFED
c. THIS PAGE
UNCLASSIFED UNLIMITED 24
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area
code)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT
PROVIDING COMPLEMENTARY EFFECT: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
BETWEEN THEATER AND HIGHER ECHELON COMMANDS
by
Colonel Kevin B. Marcus
United States Army
Colonel Thomas P. Reilly
Project Adviser
This SRP is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Strategic
Studies Degree. The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on
Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624
Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The Commission on Higher
Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of
Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.
The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author
and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army,
Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
U.S. Army War College
CARLISLE BARRACKS, PENNSYLVANIA 17013

ABSTRACT
AUTHOR: Colonel Kevin B. Marcus
TITLE: Providing Complementary Effect: Roles and Responsibilities
Between Theater and Higher Echelon Commands
FORMAT: Strategy Research Project
DATE: 11 March 2011 WORD COUNT: 5,101 PAGES: 24
KEY TERMS: Command and Control, Unity of Effort, Combatant Commands,
Battle Command
CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified
As successful as the U.S. joint force has been in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Chief
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff‟s “Capstone Concept for Joint Operations” (CCJO) outlines
the need for change in order to sustain this success in future warfare. One key area of
change should be in the roles and relationships between flag officer headquarters.
U.S., Alliance and Coalition operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are characterized by
multiple command headquarters inside and outside the theaters of operation. This
current situation is likely to be replicated in future conflicts. Ensuring that each echelon,
and each headquarters, provides truly complementary effects is critical to future
success. This paper recommends actions for those headquarters out of theater that,
once adopted, can ensure that the joint force gains added value from those
headquarters out of theater supporting the theater commander. The CCJO‟s precepts
for future joint operations establish the framework for change and an examination of the
existing NATO and U.S. chains of command for Afghanistan establish a start point for
that change. Finally, the paper concludes with a series of recommendations to greater
focus the efforts these multiple echelons of command.

PROVIDING COMPLEMENTARY EFFECT: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
BETWEEN THEATER AND HIGHER ECHELON COMMANDS
The February 2009 “Capstone Concept for Joint Operations” (CCJO) establishes
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs‟ vision of how the joint force will operate in the future.
By assessing current capacity against future requirements, the CCJO establishes that
while the existing joint force is both proven and capable, it is not sufficient to meet future
requirements. As a result the CCJO emphasizes the need “… to develop new
capabilities and change the capacities of existing ones.”1
The ability to execute newly
developed or redeveloped capabilities will in large part be dependent on the ability to
command and control them. Thus, as the U.S. military anticipates change to meet
future requirements, it must examine the roles and interrelationships of the flag officer
headquarters tasked with implementing those changes.
A constant in the U.S. military experience in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been
the growth in numbers and capacity of flag officer headquarters in theater. The roles
performed by a single joint task force in Iraq in 2003 (Combined / Joint Task Force – 7)
are now performed by three joint task forces in 2011 (Multinational Forces Iraq – I,
Multinational Corps – Iraq and Multinational Security and Training Command – Iraq).
The missions controlled in Afghanistan by the 10th Mountain Division – based Joint
Task Force 180 in 2004 are now controlled by at least six commands: Headquarters,
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Headquarters U.S. Forces –
Afghanistan (USFOR– A), Headquarters ISAF Joint Command (IJC), HQ NATO
Training Mission – Afghanistan (NTM – A) along with Combined / Joint Interagency
Task Forces for anti-corruption and detention operations. The rise in the numbers of

2
theater headquarters has been accompanied by a rise in their capacity to plan and
control theater operations. These theater headquarters are uniformly commanded by
seasoned senior general officers and have accompanying staffs with great operational
experience. Many of our flag commanders now have repeated tours of duty in both Iraq
and Afghanistan and well understand how to plan and execute operations in theater.
Unfortunately, their capacities are not matched by those of the headquarters out
of theater that are tasked to resource and direct their efforts. The out of theater chains
of command are often characterized by redundancy and reaction and, as a result, the
joint or Allied force is not getting full complementary effect from the various echelons of
command. Out of theater headquarters do not offer the value added that they should to
the theater commander. This paper will offer some ways that they could.
It will begin by outlining future requirements for the joint force as established by
the U.S. Joint Force Command‟s Joint Operating Environment and accompanying
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff‟s Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (version
3). The existing command and control structure for Afghanistan will then be examined
in order to provide an example of the likely future shape of command and control
architecture and by pointing out redundancies within that structure, further establish the
need to better focus the actions of our out of theater headquarters and better support
both National policy makers and theater commanders. Finally, the paper will provide a
series of recommendations to do this and, in doing so, ensure that our command and
control structures are complementary rather than supplementary.
Two caveats are necessary to frame this work. The first is one of definition. “Out
of theater” headquarters is defined as any headquarters not deployed to the theater of

3
operations but within the theater chain of command. Examples of these headquarters
include U.S. Geographic Combatant Command s (GCC), NATO or other Alliance or
coalition authorities (examples include Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe
[SHAPE] and Joint Force Command – Brunssum [JFC – BS]) and or other National
headquarters. The second caveat is frame of reference. Much of the judgments of the
efficacy of our out of theater headquarters are driven by my own experience working
with them (as a theater – level staff officer in both Iraq and Afghanistan) or in them
(most recently as the Chief of the ISAF Operations Team at NATO‟s Supreme
Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe [SHAPE]). While these experiences are “one
man‟s view” of different echelons in two theaters, I believe the resultant insights and
perspectives can be of value when identifying some ways to improve the ability to
provide complementary effect.
Future Requirements
The U.S. Joint Forces Command‟s Joint Operating Environment (JOE) is
designed to inform future joint concepts, doctrine and training by outlining the key facets
of the current and future security environments and the resultant impacts on the joint
force. While acknowledging the constant, fundamental nature of warfare, the JOE notes
that “… changes in the political landscape, adaptations by the enemy, and advances in
technology will change the character of war.”2
The effect of these changes will be to
produce an environment characterized by uncertainty, complexity, rapid change, and
persistent conflict.3
The challenges posed by this environment are the basis for the accompanying
CJCS produced Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (version 3). This 2009
document provides a “…vision for how the joint force circa 2016-2028 will operate in

4
response to a wide variety of security challenges.”4
Its primary purpose is to inform
force development and experimentation by establishing a common frame of reference
for military and political actors, establishing a conceptual framework as a basis for joint
and Service concepts and finally, guiding the study, experimentation and evaluation of
joint concepts and capabilities.5
While it is not joint doctrine and, as such, is neither
directive nor authoritative it is informative in that it provides a basis for a common
understanding of the operational imperatives to frame future joint operations. Echoing
the JOE, the CCJO notes the success of the joint force in our current efforts but goes on
to state that future demands will require us to both sustain the progress made to date
while changing capabilities, doctrine, organizations and technologies to meet the
demands of the future. Underpinning future joint success will be the ability to meet a
number of factors, defined in the CCJO as Common Operating Precepts. Achieving
these will be integral to future joint force success. They include the following:
• Achieve and maintain unity of effort within the joint force and between the joint
force and U.S. government, international, and other partners.
• Plan for and manage operational transitions over time and space.
• Focus on operational objectives whose achievement suggests the broadest and
most enduring results.
• Combine joint capabilities to maximize complementary rather than merely
additive effects.
• Avoid combining capabilities where doing so adds complexity without
compensating advantage.
• Drive synergy to the lowest echelon at which it can be managed effectively.
• Operate indirectly through partners to the extent that each situation permits.
• Ensure operational freedom of action.

5
• Maintain operational and organizational flexibility.
• Inform domestic audiences and influence the perceptions and attitudes of key
foreign audiences as an explicit and continuous operational requirement.6
While each is significant and achieving each has its own challenges, two of these
precepts are of particular interest. The first is that future joint operations must “Achieve
and maintain unity of effort within the joint force and between the joint force and U.S.
government, international, and other partners”. While the precepts are not stated to be
placed in priority order, this precept could be seen as the first among equals. U.S. and
Alliance operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan are marked by multiple governmental
and non – governmental organizations working in the same areas and very few report to
any common headquarters. Moreover, these operations are not purely U.S. operations.
Operations in Iraq are coalition operations. U.S. operations in Afghanistan are
subsumed within the NATO Alliance and must not only be coordinated with NATO
policy, but also be adapted or constrained to fit that policy. Thus, with little unity of
command, the best a force can hope for is unity of effort. Indeed, as stated in the CCJO
“The problem of achieving and maintaining operational coherence is more important
and difficult than ever before….”7
This problem is specifically addressed as one found
between the military instrument and other government or non-governmental
organizations. Stating that the U.S. joint force has already “…established effective
mechanisms for achieving internal unity of effort based on a single military chain of
command…” its premise is that there must be increased emphasis on gaining and
maintaining unity of effort where unity of command is impractical or impossible to
achieve.8

6
The second is the precept to “Combine joint capabilities to maximize
complementary (emphasis added) rather than merely additive effects.” The essence of
the precept is that the joint force must take all actions necessary to provide the right
combination of service capabilities in order to ensure that the sum does, indeed, reflect
more than the total of its parts. That this is hardly a revolutionary notion is
acknowledged by the authors who state that “Joint synergy essentially „scales up‟ the
commonly understood mechanism of combined arms.”9
However, the notion of
complementary vice additive effects is insightful and recalls a similar notion applied to
tactical direct fire planning. In that model, true mass relies on complementary effect:
each weapon system firing at a unique target. Direct fire mass is diametrically opposed
to volume of fire: multiple systems firing at the same target. Achieving complementary
effect at the operational or strategic level relies not only upon combining service
capabilities, thus enhancing the power of the force, but also using one Service‟s
capability to obviate the use of another. An example would be the use of U.S. Air Force
close air support instead of U.S. Marine Corps support. While both forms of air support
have their utility, and both can be appropriate to a given situation, the thrust of the
CCJO‟s argument is valid. Instead of “piling on” we must apply the best of one service
or capability in order to avoid the requirement to apply another one. This same precept
can be extended to relationships between headquarters and echelons of command. By
examining the capabilities of each we can use these as a basis to gain complementary
effect from our chains of command. Instead of layering multiple headquarters with
supplementary roles, we can achieve true mass by focusing each headquarters to best
take advantage of its unique capabilities.

7
Meeting these two precepts will rely upon well developed, mutually supportive
headquarters. Achieving unity of effort will require constant dialogue with National
authorities to ensure understanding of common end state. Maximizing complementary
effect will rely upon headquarters that can recognize and focus on executing unique
roles while shedding those better executed by another headquarters. The current
situation in the ISAF chain of command provides an example of the current state of
affairs and exemplifies the need for change.
The Current Situation
The command structure for ISAF is complex with dual U.S. and Alliance chains
and features a number of flag officer headquarters (see Figure 1: ISAF Command and
Control).
Figure 1: ISAF Command and Control
X X X X X X X X
ISAF USFOR-A
X X X X
JFC B
X X X X
CENTCOM
SECDEF
CJCS
X X X X
SHAPE
X X X X
EUCOM
NAC
MC
NATO Command
US Command
Coordination

8
The theater commander, General Petraeus, is dual – hatted. In his NATO
capacity as COMISAF his immediate commander is the Commander, Joint Force
Command – Brunnsum (COM JFC BS) who is a German four star general. COM JFC
BS is designated the “operational headquarters” for ISAF and is responsible for
providing operational guidance and direction for the mission, relaying SACEUR‟s
direction, and executing multinational training programs.10
JFC BS maintains a 24 / 7
operations center to monitor and report tactical events (“Significant Activities” or
SIGACTS) and prepare and submit daily, weekly and bi – annual reports and
assessments. COM JFC BS reports to SACEUR who is headquartered at Supreme
Headquarters, Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). SACEUR is one of two “strategic
commanders” within the NATO Alliance and is responsible for overall command of the
ISAF mission to a number of bodies. First, he reports to the NATO Military Committee.
The Military Committee (MC) is the senior military authority in NATO and is charged to
link Alliance political and military organizations. It is the primary source of military
advice to the NAC while also serving as a source of guidance to the strategic military
headquarters (e.g. SHAPE).11
The MC is chaired by a four star flag officer (currently an
Italian Admiral) and sits in permanent session with military representatives from each
member Nation but can meet with representation from each Nation‟s Chief of Defense.
SACEUR also reports to the North Atlantic Council (NAC). Chaired by the Secretary
General, this is NATO‟s senior policy making body and is formed by Permanent
Representatives at the Ambassadorial level that represent the Alliance heads of state or
government or ministers of defense.12

9
Thus, in the NATO chain of command, two four star headquarters (JFC BS and
SHAPE) and one four star chaired committee (the NATO Military Committee) separate
COMISAF from the ultimate NATO decision making body, the North Atlantic Council.
Differentiating the roles and responsibilities between SHAPE and JFC BS is
problematic; both perform largely redundant roles and execute redundant tasks. Both
headquarters monitor the same tactical operations in great detail and provide daily and
weekly operations summaries and reports which review tactical operations down to the
Regional Command level. Both JFC BS and SHAPE produce Operations Plans
(OPLANS) for ISAF which have essentially redundant content. Finally, both produce
semi – annual mission assessments which are, again, largely redundant.13
Their unique
roles are limited to training and contracting authorities (which are solely a JFC BS
function) and force generation (which is solely a SHAPE function).14
The U.S. chain is slightly more streamlined. In his U.S. capacity, General
Petraeus is Commander, U.S. Forces – Afghanistan (USFOR – A) and reports to
Commander, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). CENTCOM, like SHAPE and JFC
BS, monitors ongoing operations, provides orders and plans and conducts
assessments. Commander, CENTCOM (COMCENT) reports to the Secretary of
Defense (the apex of the U.S. military chain of command) while informing and
coordinating with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as required.
There are multiple points of interaction between both U.S. and NATO chains of
command. The first is between JFC Brunnsum and CENTCOM. As the “operational
headquarters”, COM JFC Brunnsum has been granted direct liaison authority with
CENTCOM to coordinate operational issues. Another point lies in the dual roles of the

10
SACEUR who is dual hatted as Commander, U.S. European Command (COMEUCOM).
As COMEUCOM he is a supporting combatant commander to CENTCOM for support to
Operation Enduring Freedom which is the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. Indeed,
EUCOM has played a key role in coordinating U.S. support to ISAF training and
manning efforts and COMEUCOM places much effort towards this role. However, he is
also SACEUR and, as such, is firmly within the NATO chain of command. Thus, one
commander sits within and astride both chains of command: a significant means of
interaction. Unfortunately, his staffs are separated. Aside from a small advisory group
in Belgium, the EUCOM staff sits in Germany and no common secure computer network
links them. Thus while the Commander sees the same mission from both perspectives,
his two staffs rarely share that common, unified perspective.
Finally, both the U.S. Secretary of Defense and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
perform not only their U.S roles but also NATO roles. Both sit on the NATO North
Atlantic Council and the NATO Military Committee when they meet in either Minister of
Defense or Chiefs of Defense formats. Thus, both chains of command interact and
intertwine at multiple levels.
On the whole the ISAF chain of command has two significant features. First is
that it is that it is marked by dual chains of command (both Alliance and National) with
multiple links between those chains. Next, is that it features multiple, senior level
headquarters, often with redundant functions, separating the theater headquarters from
senior level policy or command authority. This complex, echeloned, inter-related and
multinational ISAF chain of command is likely to be replicated in future conflict.

11
While each is staffed with competent, qualified personnel, their efforts are often
focused on reinforcing or reporting theater operations – creating a supplementary effect
– rather than focusing on what they, uniquely, can provide thus providing a
complementary effect. Thus, the problem becomes one of ensuring that each of those
echelons, each of the headquarters, adds utility to the fight. Theater headquarters plan
and control full spectrum campaigns and are more than capable of translating strategic
guidance into tactical effect. The issue lies with the out of theater headquarters. What
must their charter be and how can it be executed in order to add unique utility to the
theater commander?
Recommendations
In 1990, then General Crosbie Saint noted “…Army Group Commanders must
avoid doing everyone else‟s job after they have laid the groundwork for the campaign.”15
While we no longer have Army Groups, nor those in command of them, his premise
remains valid. Commanders must remain focused on their job. Delineating their “job”
according to a level of war is less than helpful. The debates and accompanying
theoretical one upsmanships surrounding responsibilities within and between strategic,
operational and tactical levels of war often take us away from a focus on what it really
important: achieving both unity of effort and complementary effect. A basis for a more
effective means to delineate responsibilities is found in Joint Publication 1 “Doctrine for
the Armed Forces of the United States” which states that complementary synergy
requires “… understanding the particular capabilities and limitations that each
component brings to the operation.”16
While this concept as stated is one based on
service interaction, it is equally applicable to the interaction between echelons of

12
command and headquarters. Thus, synergy in a chain of command relies upon each
headquarters understanding its unique capabilities and limitations and focusing its
energies accordingly. Quite simply, each headquarters should focus its efforts on
providing that which the subordinate and superior headquarters cannot provide. While
each echelon and headquarters out of theater has unique capacities, there are some
general functions unique to all of them.
The first of these is to provide guidance and direction in the form of orders and
plans. U.S. headquarters in both Iraq and Afghanistan are de facto Joint Task Forces
that are established for a specific purpose and have limited planning horizons.17
While
they are clearly planning far beyond these doctrinal norms, it should not be assumed
that their successors will be able to do so. Future JTFs, established for a specific
mission, should not be counted upon to have the broader view of the other issues
outside their theater, most significantly those of National policy, which could and likely
will affect and constrain their operation. While theater commanders and staffs are
eminently qualified to develop comprehensive theater campaign plans that identify what
must be done, these should be based on a larger, strategic, plan that identifies how
these operations support policy. Thus, while the theater commander may not need
guidance on the “how,” he does need guidance on the “why.” In order to add value to
theater efforts, out of theater headquarters‟ plans should focus on designating an end
state that supports National or Alliance policy, focus on assessing that end state,
identifying and assessing risks to the mission and constraining the operation.
Out of theater headquarters must design and publish a theater end state which
achieves National or Alliance policy ends. Those headquarters, often co-located with

13
political leadership, are uniquely positioned to synchronize policy with operations and
execute the “…candid and continuous dialogue between political and military leaders”
required to reconcile political purpose with military means.”18
Moreover, that policy must
be translated into effective strategy to enable theater operations. As Richard K. Betts
observes, strategy is a bridge between policy and operations that “…allows elements on
either side to move to the other” thus integrating political and military criteria rather than
separating them into discreet boxes.19
Some recent work builds on this argument to
make a case that campaign planning should be reserved for those headquarters in
capitals. Because campaign planning, they argue, is currently a product of strategy it
“…must occur in national capitals or at least within the National strategic leadership”20
which are best positioned to execute the detailed coordination of “domestic and
international politics with military, diplomatic and informational actions.”21
Unfortunately, this is routinely seen as a theater responsibility. Indeed, all too often,
“…synchronizing policy ends with national ways and means is seen as a delegated
technical …. matter. ”22
While theater commanders will continue to create theater
strategic campaign plans, translating policy into guidance for the theater commander is
a unique responsibility of an out of theater headquarters and is essential towards
resourcing the theater effort.
Beyond designating an end state, our out of theater headquarters must assume
the lead role of assessing and, as required, adjusting the end state. As Alien: How
Operational Art Devoured Strategy observes, in the protracted conflicts of today as a
“…war progresses, the strategic ends of the belligerents will usually evolve steadily.”23
Out of theater headquarters removed from the daily “grind” of theater operations and

14
with less personnel turnover have the opportunity to focus on these strategic ends and
assess their feasibility and suitability. The out of theater headquarters must be able to
project the current trends forward in time and surmise the resultant end state.
Routinely, when things go wrong, we look to correct them by adjusting the forces or
their tactics. An example of this is the discussions and planning over the so – called
“Surge” in Iraq in 2006. The discussions revolved not around adjusting the end state –
but adjusting the means and ways to execute that end state. However, there is often
nothing wrong with the tactics, and the appropriate forces and means are available.
The problem is with the end state: it is not feasible. So, we increase forces or adjust
tactics in an attempt to meet an infeasible end state. In order to avoid this in the future,
we must evaluate our end state prior to evaluating our “ways” or “means”. Our
headquarters out of theater must assume that function.
Our out of theater headquarters must also be those focused on identifying and
mitigating risks to mission. The ability to identify, articulate and then mitigate risk is
inherent in any level of operation. However, headquarters at each level often analyze
risks to forces vice risks to mission. Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) can provide
an example. While increasing IED use and lethality is a hazard that results in a risk to
our forces and may result in a risk to a company or battalion level mission, it is not a risk
to the U.S. or Alliance mission. These national or alliance hazards and risks are
different but must be identified, articulated and mitigated to the same level that we do
tactical ones. Examples of the latter could include budgetary constraints. If the mission
is to improve the capability of Afghan security forces, a lack of funding is a hazard that
could pose a direct risk to mission. Another may be the lack of Alliance consensus. A

15
poor understanding of our mission within alliance or coalition capitals can result in a lack
of political support, which in turn prevents consensus and paralyzes Alliance actions
and effectively culminates the mission. These are hazards and risks to mission and
these are the ones that out of theater headquarters must put their energies into
identifying and developing means to mitigate. Finally, the out of theater headquarters
must ensure that these risks are clearly articulated to, and understood by, our political
leadership.
Another key element of guidance and direction must be that of limiting the
operation. While it may seem counter-intuitive, sometimes limiting the operation is an
important means to resource the operation. Limitations, both constraints and restraints,
can narrow the scope of theater responsibilities (thus better aligning tasks with the
means available) while concurrently placing more of the burden on out of theater
headquarters.24
An example of restraints could be ones of engagement, restricting a
theater commander‟s ability to meet with Alliance heads of state while firmly placing that
on the shoulders of SHAPE or JFC Brunssum (in the case of the NATO chain of
command). A significant means to constrain the operation is to establish priorities for
the theater commander. While the tasks assigned to a theater commander are broad
and extensive, his means to achieve them may be limited. As a result, while a theater
commander must operate continuously throughout his entire battle space, he cannot do
everything equally well. While all tasks are important; not are all equally important. He
has to have priorities that enable him to better focus limited means while also allowing
him to assume educated risk in other areas. Out of theater headquarters should assign
these priorities and assume the risks entailed in that prioritization. A final means to

16
constrain the operation is for an out of theater headquarters to retain command over
forces and functions. Notwithstanding the validity of resourcing the theater with the
forces appropriate to the mission; providing forces, and their implied missions, to the
theater sometimes just adds an additional burden. An example is the wholesale
transfer of theater sustainment forces in Iraq from ARCENT / CFLCC to V Corps in May
and June 2003. While the Corps gained additional forces (namely Military Police,
Signal and Logistics units) it also assumed full responsibility for missions that,
heretofore, had been reserved for CFLCC. Thus, while the good news was that
additional forces were provided, the bad news was that with them came a complex
mission set that the in theater headquarters was not prepared to assume.25
Out of theater headquarters should also be the headquarters that communicate
the mission‟s successes and justify the need for change. Antulio Echavarria argues that
“Political and military leaders must habituate themselves to thinking more thoroughly
about how to turn combat successes into favorable strategic outcomes.”26
While
Echavarria‟s statement is in the context of establishing the requirement to maintain a
focus on the purpose of war, versus the battles that comprise it, the statement also
applies to an important function that out of theater headquarters can achieve:
communicating tactical success in order to protect the will of National populations.
“Strategic communications” has become a significant feature of any discussion of
military operations. Unfortunately our various echelons of command focus their
communications on the same audiences: everyone. An important resource for the
mission is the will of the Nation to commit forces and means to the mission. By
communicating theater successes to those Nations‟ capitals and populations out of

17
theater headquarters can ensure that the theater is resourced. Moreover, by
communicating the need to change the mission, these same headquarters can justify
additional commitments to the mission. While the theater commander must focus his
messages to the populations in his battle space, those out of theater must focus on
other audiences, in particular those National policy makers and populations that control
the means and will to fight.
Another unique area for the out of theater headquarters is to increase private
sector involvement. Theater operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan exemplify the
complex “hybrid” conflicts envisaged in the future. These operations rely upon social,
economic development as much as, perhaps more so, than they do military success.
Unfortunately, development efforts in both theaters are predominately executed with
public funds and with public sector employees (be they uniformed or civilian). The
United States is committing billions of taxpayer‟s dollars into development through
USAID. Most NATO allies are doing the same through their counterpart organizations.
Thus, we have governments and public funds focused on developing what private
businesses do best. While USAID performs great service, it is comprised of
government employees. Government employees are not best suited to build private
sector economies - businessmen are. Someone has to involve the private sector and
one headquarters has to coordinate that. This should be a role for an out of theater
headquarters. As an example, if the goal is to develop an Afghan oil industry, Shell Oil
(or any other such commercial firm) could be an invaluable partner. The same could
hold true for banking. If the goal is to develop a modern banking system, Fortis Bank or
BNP Paribas could provide much more expertise than could our own, limited, public

18
sector experience. Coordinating private sector involvement can be an important means
for the out of theater headquarters to shape the fight for the theater commander.
Finally, the out of theater headquarters can serve as an important source of
context and information by providing continuity of experience. Our theater headquarters
are staffed primarily with individuals on a variety of tour lengths, few in excess of 12
months. Out of theater headquarters are staffed with much more continuity. An
example is SHAPE‟s ISAF Operations Team of approximately 20 personnel most of
whom will spend the bulk, if not all, of their three year assignment working purely ISAF
policy and operations. These headquarters have the records, background and
experience to resource the theater with a long term, broad institutional memory. While
there is often a strict division between those “boots on the ground” and a concomitant
reluctance to gain advice from those who are not “on the ground,” those who ignore the
advice and perspectives of an out of theater headquarters are depriving themselves and
their mission of a valuable source of input.
Conclusion
A feature of any future conflict will be multiple headquarters operating both inside
and outside the theater of operations. The ability to ensure unity of command and effort
while concurrently gaining complementary effect will rely on deconflicting the roles and
responsibilities of each of these headquarters. While each is filled with hard working,
talented commanders and staff officers, the sum of their efforts does not always
produce as much utility as it could. Gaining this complementary effect is predicated on
focusing on each echelon executing what it is uniquely positioned to do. While the

19
specifics may vary, in general out of theater headquarters can play a valuable role to
the theater commander by ensuring that theater operations achieve policy ends and
then, beyond that, constraining and prioritizing theater operations and assuming the
risks inherent with that. Assuming this function also relies upon the efforts of our
theater commanders. As our out of theater headquarters assume more roles and more
functions our theater commanders must relinquish some functions that have become
seen as part of their responsibilities (e.g. policy interface) . They must do their part by
allowing the out of theater headquarters to do their jobs. As those headquarters out of
theater provide greater value, we will do much to provide the kind of complementary
Endnotes
1
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (v. 3.0), (Washington,
DC: U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, January 15, 2009), iv.
2
U.S. Joint Forces Command, The Joint Operating Environment (JOE), (Suffolk, VA: U.S.
Joint Forces Command, February 18, 2010), 8.
3
Ibid., 2.
4
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (v. 3.0), iii.
5
Ibid.
6
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (v. 3.0), 21-28.
7
Ibid., 22.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid., 24.
10
“Joint Force Command Brunnsum Mission,” linked from Allied Command Operations
Home Page at “Command Structure,” http://www.aco.nato.int/page1297375.aspx (accessed
December 10, 2010).
11
“The Military Committee,” linked from NATO Home Page at “NATO A to Z,”
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49633.htm (accessed 30 January 2010).

20
12
“The North Atlantic Council,” linked from NATO Home Page at “NATO A to Z,”
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49763.htm (accessed 30 January 2010).
13
The author was responsible for preparation of SHAPE‟s bi-annual “Periodic Mission
Review” of the ISAF mission from 2009 – 2010. These reviews, prepared by the SHAPE J3
ISAF Operations Team, were fed by the JFC – BS assessments and submitted to NATO
Headquarters.
14
The author had the regular responsibility to coordinate ISAF operational issues between
JFC – BS, SHAPE and the NATO International and International Military Staffs from 2006 –
2010 as part of both the SHAPE Command Group and SHAPE J3.
15
General Crosbie E. Saint “A CinCs View of the Operational Art,” Military Review,
September 1990,
http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/p124201coll1&CISOPTR=5
40&CISOBOX=1&REC=9 (accessed 24 November 2010).
16
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States”, Joint
Publication 1 (Washington, DC: U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, May 14, 2007), III – 12.
17
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Task Force Headquarters, Joint Publication 3-33
(Washington, DC: U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, February 16, 2007), ix – 4.
18
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (v. 3.0), 2.
19
Richard K. Betts, “The Trouble with Strategy: Bridging Policy with Operations,” Joint
Force Quarterly no. 29 (Autumn 2001 – Winter 2002): 24.
20
Justin Kelly and Mike Brennan, Alien: How Operational Art Devoured Strategy, (Carlisle,
PA: US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, 2009), 5.
21
Ibid., 82.
22
Paul Newton, Paul Colley, and Andrew Sharpe, “Reclaiming the Art of British Strategic
Thinking,” RUSI Journal 155, no.1 (February / March 2010): 47.
23
Kelly and Brennan, Alien: How Operational Art Devoured Strategy, 8.
24
U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Operational Planning, Joint Publication 5-0 (Final
Coordinating Draft) (Washington, DC: U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, September 10, 2010), IV – 8.
25
Author‟s Personal Experience.
26
Dr. Antulio Echavarria, Towards an American Way of War, (Carlisle, PA: US Army War
College Strategic Studies Institute, 2004), 17.

Complementary Effect

More Related Content

What's hot (14)

Similar to Complementary Effect (20)

Complementary Effect