More allies, weaker missions?

How junior partners contribute to multinational military operations

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

There is a growing consensus that multinational military operations are often less effective than the theoretical sum of their constitutive parts. Multiple chains of command, restriction on intelligence sharing, and capability aggregation problems can reduce fighting power. However, partners may be necessary to provide legitimacy to an intervention. As such, most studies assume that the state leading a coalition (usually the United States) has to accept a degree of operational ineffectiveness in order to gain political benefits from the participation of junior partners to a multinational military operation. However, such analysis puts all junior partners under the same category, without taking into account the differentiated contributions of those junior partners based on their relative military power and international status. This article explores variation between the junior partners’ contributions and their impact on coalition political and military dynamics. It teases out the implications of adopting a fine-grained analysis of junior partners.

Original languageEnglish
JournalContemporary Security Policy
Volume40
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)70-84
ISSN1352-3260
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2. Jan 2019

Fingerprint

allies
Military
coalition
aggregation
intelligence
legitimacy
participation

Keywords

  • Coalitions
  • alliances
  • contemporary warfare
  • military interventions

Cite this

@article{acbfc7c8c67b480fa85ade36067136ff,
title = "More allies, weaker missions?: How junior partners contribute to multinational military operations",
abstract = "There is a growing consensus that multinational military operations are often less effective than the theoretical sum of their constitutive parts. Multiple chains of command, restriction on intelligence sharing, and capability aggregation problems can reduce fighting power. However, partners may be necessary to provide legitimacy to an intervention. As such, most studies assume that the state leading a coalition (usually the United States) has to accept a degree of operational ineffectiveness in order to gain political benefits from the participation of junior partners to a multinational military operation. However, such analysis puts all junior partners under the same category, without taking into account the differentiated contributions of those junior partners based on their relative military power and international status. This article explores variation between the junior partners’ contributions and their impact on coalition political and military dynamics. It teases out the implications of adopting a fine-grained analysis of junior partners.",
keywords = "Coalitions, alliances, contemporary warfare, military interventions",
author = "Olivier Schmitt",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/13523260.2018.1501999",
language = "English",
volume = "40",
pages = "70--84",
journal = "Contemporary Security Policy",
issn = "1352-3260",
publisher = "Heinemann",
number = "1",

}

More allies, weaker missions? How junior partners contribute to multinational military operations. / Schmitt, Olivier.

In: Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 40, No. 1, 02.01.2019, p. 70-84.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - More allies, weaker missions?

T2 - How junior partners contribute to multinational military operations

AU - Schmitt, Olivier

PY - 2019/1/2

Y1 - 2019/1/2

N2 - There is a growing consensus that multinational military operations are often less effective than the theoretical sum of their constitutive parts. Multiple chains of command, restriction on intelligence sharing, and capability aggregation problems can reduce fighting power. However, partners may be necessary to provide legitimacy to an intervention. As such, most studies assume that the state leading a coalition (usually the United States) has to accept a degree of operational ineffectiveness in order to gain political benefits from the participation of junior partners to a multinational military operation. However, such analysis puts all junior partners under the same category, without taking into account the differentiated contributions of those junior partners based on their relative military power and international status. This article explores variation between the junior partners’ contributions and their impact on coalition political and military dynamics. It teases out the implications of adopting a fine-grained analysis of junior partners.

AB - There is a growing consensus that multinational military operations are often less effective than the theoretical sum of their constitutive parts. Multiple chains of command, restriction on intelligence sharing, and capability aggregation problems can reduce fighting power. However, partners may be necessary to provide legitimacy to an intervention. As such, most studies assume that the state leading a coalition (usually the United States) has to accept a degree of operational ineffectiveness in order to gain political benefits from the participation of junior partners to a multinational military operation. However, such analysis puts all junior partners under the same category, without taking into account the differentiated contributions of those junior partners based on their relative military power and international status. This article explores variation between the junior partners’ contributions and their impact on coalition political and military dynamics. It teases out the implications of adopting a fine-grained analysis of junior partners.

KW - Coalitions

KW - alliances

KW - contemporary warfare

KW - military interventions

U2 - 10.1080/13523260.2018.1501999

DO - 10.1080/13523260.2018.1501999

M3 - Journal article

VL - 40

SP - 70

EP - 84

JO - Contemporary Security Policy

JF - Contemporary Security Policy

SN - 1352-3260

IS - 1

ER -