JAPCC Flyer on Multinational Logistics November 2011
Introduction
Logistics is of vital importance to any military operation. With-
out it, operations cannot be carried out or sustained. Most
oper ations start at home base and use a combination of stra-
tegic, operational and tactical movement to move forward
into the Area of Operations (AOO). The greater the scope and
the size of the operation, theoretically, the greater the reliance
on Movement and Transportation (M&T) and logistics re-
sources for deployment, sustainment and redeployment. The
Logistics effort for Operation Unified Protector (OUP) appeared
to succeed, but has NATO missed an opportunity?
With multiple nations engaged, including several non-NATO
members, providing their own logistics support, the cost, foot-
print, and redundancy associated with each respective national
logistics operation must be enormous. Air transport moves in
and out of the AOO empty, whilst other nations’ equipment
and supplies sit on the ramp waiting for lift. Haven’t we learned
lessons from previous operations, including Kosovo and Af-
ghanistan? And what has happened (according to MC 319 / 2)
to NATO’s collective responsibility?
Throughout various NATO operations there have been recog-
nised gaps in logistic support, especially when it comes to mul-
tinational and collective responsibilities. Increased footprints,
redundancy and soaring costs could surely be managed if we
put our heads together in the planning phase and re ques ted
just a little extra effort from individual nations operating as one
under the NATO flag.
Within NATO exists a Logistics Committee (LC), an M&T Group
and an M&T Forum, all working diligently to produce policy and
doctrine. Normally this is coordinated by respective Subject
Matter Experts, ratified by nations … and then what? Is it then
just placed on a NATO network web library? Does anyone at the
tactical level read this doctrine? More importantly, is it still ap-
plicable in the operational environment and, if so, is it being
used at all? Our research has shown that multiple logistics
challen ges continue to surface each time NATO undertakes a
mission. We’ll now briefly highlight the most significant of these.
Logistics Challenges
Obtaining a Clear Common Logistics Picture. Since the
overall picture for logistics is clouded by nations’ willingness
or conversely reluctance to divulge operational logistics in-
formation, there tends to be no clear understanding of each
Logistical Support chain. This denies the NATO Commander
real visibility over logistics troops, capabilities and assets, with
which to make operational decisions. Examples include air-
craft status, munitions availability, fuel consumption, and M&T
requirements for cargo and personnel. Although collective
JAPCC Flyer
Edition 4
Operation Unied Protector was
expected to be a brief engage-
ment, therefore participating na-
tions were responsible for their
own operational logistics. The
NATO Logistics Handbook states:
“once national logistics support
structures are established, it pro-
ves more dicult to move to-
wards multinational logistics so-
lutions …” Over six months later,
multinational logistics is still nota-
bly absent from OUP. Looking
back, what logistics lessons are
we still not learning?
Multinational Logistics – A Missed Opportunity?
© AVDD / Sgt Sjoerd Hilckmann
