Air University

Donald A. Lamontagne, Lt Gen, Commander

Air War College

Bentley B. Rayburn, Maj Gen, Commandant

Stephen O. Fought, PhD, Dean

Lawrence E. Grinter, PhD, Series Editor

Stephen F. Burgess, PhD, Essay Advisor

Air University Press

Shirley B. Laseter, DPA, Director

John E. Jordan, Content Editor

Lula Barnes, Copy Editor

Prepress Production: Mary Ferguson

Cover Design: Daniel Armstrong

Please send inquiries or comments to

Editor

The Maxwell Papers

Air War College

325 Chennault Circle, Bldg. 1401

Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427

Tel: (334) 953-7074

Fax: (334) 953-1988

E-mail: lawrence.grinter@maxwell.af.mil
AIR WAR COLLEGE

AIR UNIVERSITY

Leading Air Mobility

Operations in Complex

Humanitarian Emergencies

EILEEN M. ISOLA

Lieutenant Colonel, USAF 

Air War College

Maxwell Paper No. 28

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, ALABAMA

August 2002
Disclaimer

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are

solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US

government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited.

ii

This Maxwell Paper and others in the series are available electronically at the AU Press Web site http://au

press.maxwell.af.mil and the Air University Research

Web site http://research.maxwell.af.mil.
Foreword

In the last dozen years we have seen a tremendous increase in US participation in and leadership of complex

humanitarian emergencies (CHE). Given the breadth and

depth of challenges facing each mission, these operations

are always complex in tactical and operational execution.

But, of even greater import, is the unwavering requirement

for our war fighters to truly understand the highly strategic nature of CHEs and just how complex they really are

when even the most seemingly insignificant tactical task

can have global consequences and hugely complicating impacts on US national objectives. Our joint and service doctrine has come a long way in the last decade toward providing a training foundation for war fighters tasked with

leading these operations. However, we can and should do

more to educate those who will and do lead CHEs on not

only what makes CHEs so strategically complex but also

on the crosscutting tasks that will go a long way toward

achieving political and mission success.

A huge portion of the military burden in support of these

operations falls on the shoulders of the Mobility Air Forces

(MAF). Lt Col Eileen M. Isola’s Leading Air Mobility Operations in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies provides just

such an educational foundation for MAF war fighters

charged with leading CHEs. She provides a superb synthesis of a dozen years of lessons learned from many resources and institutions, sifting through the tactical and

operational lessons learned so as to focus her research

into the most important tenets for strategic success in a

CHE: build a team of teams, gather and share information

(not “intelligence”), and establish centers for interagency

success. She reviews key joint and service doctrine manuals, culling critical nuances that would likely be overlooked

by war fighters new to the CHE environment, or rushed in

a crisis deployment. Her cultural comparison of the military and nongovernmental organizations is insightful and

valuable. Throughout her work Colonel Isola provides tangible, real examples from past operations of what worked

and what did not—and why. The implications for the future are clear.

iii
As with all Maxwell Papers, this study is provided in the

spirit of academic freedom, open debate, and serious consideration of the issues. We encourage your responses.

BENTLEY B. RAYBURN

Major General, USAF

Commandant, Air War College

iv
About the Author

Lt Col Eileen M. Isola is a graduate of the Air War College, Class of 2002. Prior to her current assignment, she

was privileged to serve as the commander of the 463d Operations Support Squadron, 463d Airlift Group, at Little

Rock Air Force Base (AFB), Arkansas, and as the chief of

Joint Experimentation and chief of Modeling and Simulation for Air Mobility Command at Scott AFB, Illinois. She

has completed tours at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas; Pope

AFB, North Carolina; and Randolph AFB and Reese AFB,

Texas; as well as having served in numerous operations

and contingencies as an airlift pilot. Colonel Isola entered

the Air Force in 1985 as a graduate of the Air Force Academy with a Bachelor of Science in Management and earned

her pilot wings a year later. She is a command pilot with

over 2,500 hours in both the C-130 and T-38. She holds a

Master of Science in Electrical and Computer Engineering

from St. Mary’s University and is a graduate of the US

Army Command and General Staff College. She is a distinguished graduate of Squadron Officers School. Following her graduation from Air War College, Colonel Isola was

assigned to the new United States Northern Command in

Colorado Springs, Colorado.

v
Leading Air Mobility Operations in

Complex Humanitarian Emergencies

The Mobility Air Forces (MAF) have sustained an extraordinary operations tempo for the last 10 years in performing peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance operations, not to mention a plethora of other operations and

contingencies.1 Surely—one would assume—there must be

a surfeit of documents capturing the experiences, struggles, successes, and lessons learned of MAF war fighters

who led the execution of these incredibly complex operations, which were studded with tactical risks and strategic

effects speed bumps, especially since they often required

miracles from the mere mortals leading them.

No such surfeit exists. There are a smattering of articles

and reports, such as Col Clifton L. “Cliff” Bray’s outstanding, jaw-dropping case study on the 86th Contingency Response Group’s (CRG) involvement in Operation Shining

Hope in Tirane, Albania, and a few “lessons learned” documents that are mostly from Army institutions. There appears to be little tangible, strategically crosscutting guidance that a MAF leader, whether a tanker-airlift control

element commander or a director of mobility forces

(DIRMOBFOR), could grab onto as he or she enters into

what is one of our most difficult missions.

One also would assume, that given the war stories told

the world over of the convoluted and thorny nature of

these operations, surely the MAF must be teaching its student DIRMOBFORs the nature, doctrine, strategic implications, and practical execution of these operations from the

strategic perspective. My contacts with the Air Mobility

Warfare Center—owners of the DIRMOBFOR course—did

not show that to be so.

I hope this paper will aid in the must-do educational effort

for our MAF leaders. Joint Vision 2020 speaks of future full

spectrum dominance that includes “smaller scale contingencies” and “ambiguous situations residing between peace and

war, such as peacekeeping and peace enforcement . . . as well

as noncombat humanitarian relief . . . and support to domestic authorities.”2 It should give us all pause that we—the

Defense Department, the Air Force, and the Mobility Air

1
Forces—are not putting more effort into training and preparing our strategic leaders to be successful in what is arguably

the most complex operating environment into which we send

them. In a complex humanitarian emergency (CHE) absolutely nothing is straight-forward. Certainly nothing is

straightforward about combat. The problem, as I see it, is little or no acknowledgement in our joint and service documents that such operations constitute a combat or highthreat environment from the strategic, not tactical,

perspective. In short, “small scale contingencies” and “ambiguous situations” are not small, nor limited in scale, nor

ambiguous in political consequence or military implications.

Such CHE operations as peace and humanitarian operations

are termed in defense parlance as at the “low” end of the

spectrum of military operations with the implication, however unintended, being that these operations are of lesser

complexity, import, or consequence. Nothing could be farther

from the truth.

The intent of this study is to coalesce and synthesize formal guidance and experiential information into tangible,

practical guidance for a MAF leader tasked with executing

or supporting a CHE, such as peacekeeping, peace enforcement, or humanitarian assistance. (Such operations

also are called complex contingency operations or smallscale contingencies.) This paper does not explore or attempt to detail the air mobility-specific tactical or operational tasks commensurate with executing air mobility

operations in CHEs or elsewhere. Operational and tactical

guidance already exists in air mobility doctrine and other

formal guidance. 

Joint and Air Force air mobility doctrines are certainly

part of this synthesis, but key documents are reviewed

here only to highlight their existence. The issues of poorly

established command relationships, too much or too little

“help from above,” and unclear or inadequate guidance

and requirements remain omnipresent and, sadly, are almost expected by those sent forth to lead CHE operations. 

Precious little is written anywhere in formal guidance

about the CHE environment with regards to information

management, civil-military relations, international organizations, private volunteer organizations (PVO), and nongovernmental organizations (NGO) and their cultures; the

2 LEADING AIR MOBILITY OPERATIONS
friction points between such organizations and the military;

and the hard-core reality of the strategic constraints and effects endemic to these operations. Tenets with experiential

value are scattered across so many documents that it would

be impossible to search them all in the midst of responding

to a crisis, and it certainly would be impossible to gain the

vital understanding of the critical issues listed above.

Lessons learned across the literature heartily reinforce the

criticality, at the operational level, of lines of communication,

command and control, rules of engagement, logistics, and

joint/coalition planning. The focus of this paper, however, is

to underscore the highly strategic nature of CHE operations—even in the conduct of operational and tactical tasks—

and to capture universal tenets for both political and mission

success.

There’s Doctrine for This Stuff?

And now for something completely different.

—John Cleese

—Monty Python’s Flying Circus

The Strategic Nature of Complex 

Humanitarian Emergencies 

Peace operations are as much about hegemony as humanitarianism; they are frequently controversial, with a

host of differing opinions about their nature and purposes.

Whatever the case, “big kids on the block” in the international community intervene or conduct CHEs to pursue

their national interests and accomplish their strategic objectives. Frequently over the last decade or so, US involvement has been mainly about making troublemakers behave. “The naked reality of peace operations is that they

are the consequence of decisions by powerful outsiders to

intervene in the affairs of less well-endowed local governments, groups, and factions.”3

The United Nations (UN) activated just 13 peace operations in the 40 years between 1948 and 1988.4 In the subsequent 10 years, the UN activated or endorsed 51 such

operations, including a number of peace enforcement opISOLA 3
erations.5 Soft descriptions of CHEs as “humanitarian”

and “neutral efforts” to promote peace, stability, and “mom

and apple pie” do not explain why many of our finest and

bravest have died in them. 

CHEs are intrusions into local affairs. As such they are

highly unlikely to be viewed as politically neutral events.

Real neutrality is unattainable in CHEs. Therefore, they

often demand the full range of our strategic and tactical

capabilities—and often demand capabilities from military

leaders for which they are not equipped. And, because

CHEs demand so, they often “feel” like war, especially in

terms of the resource pressures they impose and the

“sandbox politics” they entail. 

We have learned that effective responses to these situations most often require multidimensional operations composed of political, diplomatic, humanitarian, intelligence,

economic development, security, and military components.6

Hence the interchangeable terms: complex contingency operations, small-scale contingencies, and complex humanitarian emergencies.

Air Mobility and Air Force Doctrine

You already know all about air mobility doctrine—the Air

Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2-6, Air Mobility Operations, series covering airlift, tanker, and air mobility support

operations. And, as promised, this paper will not be a recitation of doctrinal chapter and verse. However, there is another

AFDD that is a “must read” for these operations: AFDD 2-3,

Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW), dated 3 July

2000.

If you come away from AFDD 2-3 (and this paper) with

nothing else, remember this: “Political objectives drive

MOOTW at every level from strategic to tactical. A distinguishing characteristic of MOOTW is the degree to which

political objectives influence operations and tactics.” (Emphasis added.)7 Make no mistake that in this realm of “not

war–not peace” you must know and understand what the

political objectives are. As with combat operations, you can

achieve every operational and tactical task and fail miserably by not understanding the political objectives. You

must continually analyze your mission and ensure your

4 LEADING AIR MOBILITY OPERATIONS
military operations directly connect to and support the political objectives. A correct and thorough understanding of

political concerns is a must for achieving the civil objectives at the heart of the original decision to engage in a military operation. 

These objectives are often different from those of the

NGOs involved. In many cases, senior policy makers view

NGOs as separated from traditional political concerns,

since NGOs’ are thought to be focused on “moral” issues.

NGOs’ objectives also are often seen as secondary to the

military mission; the military perspective is often—get in,

fix the problem, and get out. It is critical you understand

that “where you stand” depends on “where you sit.” You

can neither ignore nor negate the importance of NGOs’ objectives in the attainment of your own military, strategic,

and political objectives.

Chapter 1 of AFDD 2-3 covers the principles of MOOTW:

objective, unity of effort, security, restraint, perseverance,

and legitimacy.8 The first five principles are pretty selfdescriptive. However, let me talk a bit about the concept of

legitimacy. 

It should be no surprise that you and your folks may or

may not be welcome at your deployed location—by the host

nation, by other countries’ militaries, or by other organizations. Individuals and organizations may not believe that US

involvement in the situation is legitimate. In the eyes of many

people, even promotion of democracy, regional security, and

economic growth can appear as assertions of cultural imperialism by the United States.

Sometimes operating under a UN Security Council resolution or mandate provides the needed legitimacy; sometimes

such a resolution means nothing at the “local” level. During

the refugee crisis that followed the Persian Gulf War, the UN

Security Council passed Resolution 688 asserting that Iraq’s

treatment of its civilian population was unacceptable. Confusion arose almost immediately as coalition troops moved

into northern Iraq. The United States, United Kingdom, and

France believed they were acting under Resolution 688 in entering the area to create a safe haven for the Kurds. But,

since the resolution made no reference to the use of force and

the protagonists had not returned to the Security Council for

ISOLA 5
further endorsement, this view was not universally accepted.9

In the case of Afghanistan and Operation Enduring

Freedom, the International Security and Assistance Force

(ISAF) was established under the sanctions of Chapter VII

of the UN Charter with a mission of nation building. However, the United States insisted that its forces prosecuting

the war on terrorism must fall under the authority of the

US Central Command.10 This created a very real blurring

of the legitimacy line from the perspective of the Afghan

populace. If US forces are not part of ISAF, just how does

an Afghani view them with respect to such legitimate peace

operations as nation building? In short, who is operating

under and for the United Nations, and who is a combat

force, with a commensurate potential for additional security risks. 

Sometimes multilateral operations may not involve the

United Nations, as when a regional alliance chooses to handle a situation without UN participation. As AFDD 2-3 says,

“While legitimacy is principally generated by our political

leadership, legitimacy in the eyes of the host nation could be

affected more by the actions of the military.”11 In order to

“prove” the legitimacy of your operations to the plethora of individuals and organizations working with you at the local

level, you must be viewed as working towards international

interests—not just US interests, and certainly not your own.

Chapter 2 of AFDD 2-3 covers the 16 different types of

operations that the Air Force doctrinally considers

MOOTW. These 16 types cover the spectrum of combat and

noncombat operations and those operations that overlap.12

This is one of those areas, though, where what is in the

doctrine books can radically depart from reality. For example, 86th CRG personnel running the Shining Hope humanitarian relief operation at Tirane, Albania, would

hardly have considered themselves in a noncombat operation despite what AFDD 2-3 may say. They were in a highthreat combat environment. As the 86th CRG commander

said in his case study on the operation, “In 20 years of special operations experience this was the furthest forward [I]

had ever seen a force placed, Army or Air Force, without a

viable emergency extraction plan.”13

6 LEADING AIR MOBILITY OPERATIONS
Chapter 3 covers one of the most critical aspects of any

operation, command and control. Chapter 4 contains a

great deal of information on planning and support considerations for a host of functional areas. Chapter 5 discusses

training and education for MOOTW operations.14

Joint Doctrine

In the joint arena, the Department of Defense (DOD)

does not make it easy for MAF war fighters to gain the requisite understanding of these operations as it spreads (and

fragments) critical information across a number of documents. For starters, DOD does a disservice by lumping

much operational air mobility guidance into the Joint Publication (JP) 4-series (logistics). Specifically, JP 4-0, Doctrine

for Logistics Support of Joint Operations, and JP 4-01.1, Joint

Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for Airlift Support to Joint

Operations, have some great guidance on the requesting,

planning, tasking, and executing of airlift movement requirements—more or less how the operational system works. Who

would think to go looking in “loggie” publications for operator guidance? Nonetheless, it is there, and you need to know

this. One of your CHE joint partners will no doubt come to

you with a problem, a confused look, and JP 4-x, and say,

“Yeah, but the book says you guys do it like this!” Why such

guidance is not (also) properly included in the JP 3-series

(operations) is beyond the scope of this paper. 

Within the JP 3-series, several documents are pieces of

the complex operational CHE pie. Here are the biggies:

• JP 3-07, Joint Doctrine for Military Operations Other

Than War, 16 June 1995

• JP 3-07.3, Joint Tactics, Techniques and Procedures

for Peace Operations, 12 February 1999

• JP 3-07.6, “Joint Tactics, Techniques and Procedures

for Foreign Humanitarian Assistance” (draft as of this

writing)

• JP 3-17, Joint Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for

Theater Airlift Operations, 18 July 1995 (under revision as of this writing)

• JP 3-57, Joint Doctrine for Civil-Military Operations, 8

February 2001

ISOLA 7
JP 3-07 is very similar to AFDD 2-3 (discussed above),

JP 3-17 is pretty much reflected in the AFDD 2-6-series,

and JP 3-07.6 is still in draft. Still, it is important that we

take the time here to review the salient points of JP 3-07.3

and JP 3-57 because CHE operations are inherently joint

and multinational—there’s literally no room for US military

participants not to be operating off the same sheet of

music.

JP 3-07.3. This is not an “eye wash” document. It is a superb text, and it is essential you read it if you are tasked to

lead any portion of a peace operation (peacekeeping or peace

enforcement). It provides an introduction to peace operations

from the strategic-political perspective and covers a host of

subjects that typical military operators and leaders often

have had little exposure to in their careers: US and multinational doctrine and terminology; roles and interactions of US

national security strategy, national military strategy, and

policy in peace operations; relationships with the diplomatic

community; legal basis for these operations, specifically covering the UN Charter; and some key documents directly associated with these operations, such as a status of forces

agreement (SOFA). Further, this publication goes into great

depth on the differences in, fundamentals of, and key considerations for organizing, planning, and conducting these

operations. It also discusses education and training considerations. Even its appendices, glossary, tables, and figures

are information packed. This is a professional reading best

seller; do not pass it up.15

JP 3-57. You have no choice but to buddy up to this publication if you are conducting any operation in which NGOs

and/or the local civilian population are involved. Like its

cousin discussed above, this text is rich in information; information that until recent years was the purview of politicians, diplomats, and philanthropists. JP 3-57’s discussions

of relationships between the military, its civilian partners,

and the local populace are of utmost importance to achieving

strategic and operational and tactical success. 

A critical tool for enabling sound civil-military relations

is knowing how to organize and communicate, and this is

where JP 3-57 earns its ink. In the oxymoron of “not

war–not peace” operations, you will have to depart from

the highly structured, highly organized, and comfortable

8 LEADING AIR MOBILITY OPERATIONS
military culture and operating environment to bring order

out of the chaos that is often endemic in CHEs. As a result

of the international community’s breakneck pace of the

last decade in conducting these operations, many organizing “best practices” have come to be viewed as “standard

practices,” and militaries and NGOs alike now expect them

to be followed in CHEs. For the US military, these organizing practices are institutionalized in JP 3-57. This expression of joint doctrine explains interagency coordination,

joint civil-military operations task forces (JCMOTF), and

the variety of “centers” and “groups” you can organize and

tailor to meet yours, the “team of teams’,” and the entire

operation’s needs. As with JP 3-07.3, the charts and figures are invaluable.16

I’m Going Where?

You Want Me to Do What?

And more and more US military men and women are gong to

be involved in vague, confusing military actions—heavily overlaid with political, humanitarian, and economic considerations. And representing the United States—the Big Guy with

the most formidable presence in the area—they will have to

deal with each messy situation and pull everything together.

We’re going to see more and more of that.

—Gen Anthony C. Zinni

––Commander in Chief

––USCENTCOM

Having seen what the books say, let us turn our attention to some practical realities as to what must work well

to achieve mission and political success. There are dozens

of lessons learned from operations of the last decade—

mostly focused at the operational level of conflict—from

which I have tried to cull some key, universal strategic

tenets. Three tenets were common among the sources. Following these three does not guarantee mission and political success, but I believe not following them almost assures political objectives will not be achieved.

Tenet 1: Build a Team

“How obvious,” you say. Well, welcome to the wonderful

crazy world of civil-military relations and operations. More

ISOLA 9
accurately, you must encourage and work to establish a

“team of teams” within and between the US military, UN,

host nation, coalition military, international and regional

alliance organizations, State Department, and NGOs. To

build this team of teams, you must work to gain an appreciation of not only the cultural commonalities but also the

sometimes-vast cultural differences between the military

and the NGOs responding to a crisis. These cultures and

their institutional biases can create roadblocks to cooperation, trust, and efficiency. You must understand these

differences and factor them into your planning and execution.

Values and Motivations. Both the military individual

and the relief worker see themselves as part of a noble calling. Both are innovative and resourceful; both take pride in

their courage and accomplishments. Both have strong “can

do” attitudes and admire perseverance; both are willing to

operate in high-risk areas. These commonalities are a

great foundation upon which to build a partnership. But,

you should also be aware that sometimes relief workers are

doing what they do because they see themselves in opposition to the establishment and thus may be hesitant

about accepting you as a partner. However, you should not

view all NGOs or their members as parts of some monolithic bloc. Often the people in such organizations fully understand that the job cannot be done without the military,

and they are truly grateful for, and admiring of, your work.

Wide and distinct differences exist among the hundreds of

NGOs in professionalism, political and religious viewpoints, operational scope, and funding sources.17

Organizational Structures. Organizational structures

often differ quite radically between NGOs as well as between NGOs and the military. Within the relief community,

each NGO has a unique organizational structure; often

this structure is a reflection of its mission statement,

which among NGOs are as varied as the NGOs themselves.

What works for one may not work for another. Some NGOs

are as small as a husband and wife team; many are large,

highly professional, globally dispersed organizations, such

as Médecins Sans Frontières (in English, Doctors Without

Borders) and the International Committee of the Red

Cross/Red Crescent. Some NGOs perform just one func10 LEADING AIR MOBILITY OPERATIONS
tion; some represent only their country or city; and some

focus on one particular area, such as the needs of children. In general, the larger and better-funded organizations are also more professional and capable. But, at times

a small or specialized NGO may play a vital role in a particular crisis. 

Military organizations are hierarchical and disciplined,

and emphasize efficiency, control, and task execution. Military people are trained to take charge of everyone and

everything in an assigned area or task. Usually this is a

recipe for disaster in a CHE operation since it quickly

alienates all the nonmilitary players. NGOs not only do not

work for you, they most urgently do not want to be perceived as working for the military. For NGOs, success (and

sometimes their very survival) relies upon remaining impartial, neutral, and nonaligned—virtually at any cost.

Often, their manifestation of an inoffensive, under armed

vulnerability is central to their efforts to gain credibility and

the appearance of neutrality. To move freely in an area of

conflict and provide assistance to all victims, NGOs must

convince all belligerents that they will not assist any side

preferentially. Some NGOs would rather forgo all manner

of military support (e.g., logistics, medical, and security)

than risk being seen as taking sides and thus losing the

trust of the populace they are helping.18 In Afghanistan

some aid organizations flatly refused to work with US soldiers, saying that the military’s aid efforts undermined the

principle of neutrality that allowed aid groups to keep

working in Afghanistan even during the toughest years

under the Taliban.19 The bottom line is (back to those

strategic political objectives again) the multilateral nature

of civil-military operations wherein diplomatic requirements balance geopolitical interests to produce arrangements that sometimes differ sharply from the unity of command military people are accustomed to.20

Decision-making Process. In the military, we value the

leader who conducts good cross-functional coordination and

makes decisions in a centralized and objective-driven manner. We also do not tend to empower low-level personnel to

make decisions. While we encourage initiative, we reserve the

making of policy for the higher levels. Relief agencies, on the

other hand, actually prefer consensus building to coordinaISOLA 11
tion. In fact, they often have no coordination process of their

own at all. They tend to maximize delegation of decision making, often to what we would consider very low levels. NGOs

often give field representatives a great deal of authority to

make and implement decisions. For us this can be frustrating in that sometimes overall NGO policy is difficult to establish. Similarly, we can be equally frustrating to the NGOs

with our higher level, centralized process. So, not only is an

NGO likely to intentionally take a seemingly disorganized approach but also, in doing so, NGOs collectively create a freewheeling, disorganized conglomeration of organizations.21

Tenet 2: It’s called Information,

not Intelligence

It took several years of ever more intense involvement in

complex operations before the United Nations quietly admitted what military folks have always known: intelligence is

the key to any operation, including CHEs. To state the seemingly obvious, intelligence has a crucial role to play at the

low end of the conflict spectrum as well as in other places.

Like the military, NGOs crave information (maps, transportation services, hazardous areas). Information exchange between the military and NGOs is essential to a

CHE’s success and can be the focal point for a trust-based

partnership. The rub comes in the use of terms—information versus intelligence. To illustrate how “intelligence-phobic” the relief world is, even the UN does not call the multisource gathering of information by secure means

intelligence; it’s simply called information collection.22

Never overlook or underestimate the absolute criticality

of good old-fashioned intelligence in your CHE operation.

The fact that CHEs are often different in scope, complexity, and operation than force-on-force combat operations

only makes the “fog and friction of relief” worse, and your

need for sound intelligence is no less than in conventional

operations. While intelligence has traditionally focused on

the enemy, the definition of whom or what the enemy is in

a CHE is not always clear. In Somalia the forces of Mohammed Aideed became the adversary, and our intelligence resources focused on them. However, your intelligence and information collection also needs to be geared to

12 LEADING AIR MOBILITY OPERATIONS
indicators signaling the direction in which the operation is

heading to monitor the status of resource distribution

(e.g., food) and build better situational awareness. What

signs would show if levels of violence are increasing or decreasing? How should these things be measured and by

what part of your command? Such an unconventional approach to old-fashioned mission analysis may help you

identify a missing piece of your puzzle.

As a rule, NGOs do not come close to having the information gathering and dissemination capability of US military forces. You need to do all you can to support their information needs without compromising force protection

and security, being perceived as collecting intelligence on

the NGOs or their operations, or causing them to be perceived as nonneutral (e.g., providing an informational “leg

up” over another NGO or local leader or warlord). Significant unclassified resources exist that may be useful to

NGOs and that could be provided with good coordination.

The first step in sharing such information is to establish

user-friendly standards for NGO use in requesting the information. The process should be simple, and it must

allow you to retain some control of your people and resources. The process must be the same for everyone (neutrality) and responsive (team building).23

The military often overlooks the treasure trove of information NGOs can be. They often arrive before military

forces, and they usually have been operating on the

ground for years. They can provide key information about

the host nation’s political, cultural and social situations,

which can help you seek out (or avoid) sensitive contacts

that could affect local perceptions of your neutrality or legitimacy.24 NGOs also can counter disinformation—a

major fact of life in a CHE operation. You and your NGO

partners will likely face concerted attempts by disagreeing

(if not warring) factions to influence not only their own

population but also international policy and action.25 Information exchange between and within your operations

and the NGOs’ is absolutely critical, and the NGOs know

that, too. In fact, the major NGOs have gone so far as to

conduct an internationally, cross-functionally attended

four-day “Symposium on Best Practices in Humanitarian

Information Exchange” in February 2002. One outcome of

ISOLA 13
this gathering was establishment of the Humanitarian Information Center in Kabul, Afghanistan, as central to the

conduct of the Afghanistan CHE.26

Which brings me to the last aspect of information management—the media. Hopefully, by the time you lead a

CHE operation, you will have undergone media training.

This is a must do. Just like the military, NGOs need to get

their story out, and media attention is often their lifeline.

In fact, since most NGOs survive and operate on donations,

it’s often crucial to their continued existence that their

constituents see their good works and successes. Your

trusty public affairs officer can be the key. Additionally,

military civil affairs units can be crucial to the dissemination

of information to the affected population. You, however,

must keep close watch that neither you nor your folks consciously or inadvertently compromise neutrality, legitimacy,

or any other issue that jeopardizes political objectives. 

In this regard, distinguished visitor (DV) events are often

ambiguous and typically will gobble up your time. In normal circumstances, when DVs visit your Air Force “patch,”

they are guests of someone in your official US chain of

command. Thus, you roll out the red carpet, including the

usual sundry of appropriate media. In CHE operations, you

must always remember that “this” foreign minister or “that”

government envoy may not be a guest of the US government

and may not support stated US-, coalition-, or UN-sanctioned political objectives. As a rule, you should still roll

out the red carpet being very careful in determining what

role, if any, you will play—publicly or privately—in hosting

the DV. You may or may not have the opportunity to consult with your chain of command, or even to advise them

someone will visit, since these DVs frequently show up

unannounced. In such cases, get a protocol team to join

you as soon as you can but, as a general rule, in the CHE

environment you neither can nor should get all caught up

in the rigamarole typical of a stateside base visit.

Tenet 3: Establish Centers for

Interagency Success

NGOs swarm to crises like bats returning from a night’s

feeding or, as one uniformed participant in Operation Pro14 LEADING AIR MOBILITY OPERATIONS
vide Comfort described them, “disaster junkies and

groupies.”27 During Operation Uphold Democracy, more

than 400 NGOs operated in Haiti;28 in Somalia there were

at least 49 different international agencies;29 for Operation

Support Hope in Rwanda, there were 109 in Kigali alone;30

for Operation Shining Hope in Albania, there were over

100;31 and in Afghanistan there are an estimated 105 and

growing.32 The breadth and depth of the international military response can be similar: Before Operation Shining

Hope was finished, Rinas Airport was home to 19 nations

assisting in the refugee relief effort.33

Civil military operations centers (CMOC) originated during Operation Provide Comfort, the 1991 Iraqi Kurdish humanitarian assistance operation, and are now institutionalized in doctrine. Doctrine also discusses such groupings

as the humanitarian operations center (HOC), the on-site

operations coordination center (OSOCC), and the humanitarian assistance coordination center (HACC) and talks at

length about the critical roles they play in CHEs.34

Here’s the bottom line from the field: There is no set or formal organizational and communication structure for you

and the team of teams that will get the job done. What you

must do is establish a “floating” and continuous process

that focuses on collaboration and coordination between

the NGO community and the military. This process may

include no more than a regular meeting place and time

where all can come to the table, but you must understand

that NGOs will not come to a meeting unless they hope to

gain something, such as logistical support or information.

The converse is also true: the military hopes to gain economy of effort from the NGOs.35

In the Rwanda operation, the NGO representatives at

the CMOC meetings varied—they showed up according to

their need to move their “stuff” or themselves into or out of

the area. However, the information the NGOs had was of

great importance to the military’s ability to monitor the entire situation: shipments coming and going, events, needs,

and so on. Per the principle of altruistic self-interest, the

CMOC came up with two high-value “commodities” to exchange for NGO information: “chits” that could be exchanged for military airlift and a bulletin board outside the

CMOC office on which NGO personnel could tack their

ISOLA 15
business cards, thus enabling them to locate friends and

colleagues. Once at the CMOC, the NGO representatives

would be asked the pertinent questions of the day.36

Note that in discussing this “coming to the table,” I did

not say “coming to the table to make decisions”; decisions

may or may not be made at every meeting. Key representatives from the team of teams need a forum to exchange

information, make requests, gather, evaluate, collate, disseminate, assist—you get the picture. But, remember that

this particular gathering must be a meeting sponsored by

the military so civil-military operations can be worked. No

doubt there will be many other meetings hosted by other

agencies, such as the United Nations or host nation, many

of which you should attend. But this one is yours. Give the

meeting a name so that everyone can refer to a common

data point. The “Military Meeting” was used in Albania

where there was no CMOC for the first month.37 The NGO

community self-organized the Coalition Humanitarian Liaison Center in Islamabad, Pakistan, to provide the international aid community with information about the security situation and safe routes in and out of Afghanistan.38

The “CMOC Meeting” worked in Somalia, Rwanda, and

Haiti where CMOCs were focal points. In Haiti, CMOC

briefings were conducted every four hours to keep everybody up to speed, and the CMOC became not only a secure, warm, dry place to get a cup of coffee but also a place

to swap potentially lifesaving information.39

Your meeting should be held in a safe, nonthreatening

location within walking distance of your secure military

operations center. Safe, nonthreatening is a perspective-dependent term; be sure and consult with your NGO counterparts to establish a mutually agreed upon location that also

fits their definition of what safe, nonthreatening means. It’s

important to appreciate that NGOs define their security in

terms of the larger context: What is the situation developing around us, and what is driving the relationships

around us? To an NGO, security is based on having both

an acute situational awareness and the legitimacy that results from acting in a humanitarian manner appropriate to

the overall situation.40 Neutrality, legitimacy, and no intelligence collecting are again crucial. Finally, in addition to

your own military meeting, try to quietly provide NGO rep16 LEADING AIR MOBILITY OPERATIONS
resentatives a place where they can hold their own internal-NGO meetings.41

In Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti, the military’s

need for operational security limited the flow of information

from the military to humanitarian assistance organizations.

The military did establish a CMOC to coordinate efforts with

these organizations, but it was placed in an area to which

the humanitarian assistance people had limited access.

The military also wanted one person in charge of the overall operation, to include the efforts of the NGOs, while the

NGOs wanted a cooperative arrangement. These and other

issues led to some cases of alienation between the military

and the NGOs. Over time these issues were resolved, but

in the interim they hampered the total effort.42

In Somalia many NGOs were concerned their neutrality

might be questioned if they were too closely associated

with the military. As a result, to provide the critical NGOmilitary link, a HACC was established apart from the

CMOC.43 The same was done in Haiti where the CMOC’s

primary function was to process NGO requests for support

sent over from the HACC.44

From the military’s perspective in Somalia, the decision to locate the CMOC apart from the HACC had as

much to do with security as with neutrality. As part of

its mission, the US military was tasked with disarming

Somalis. Yet, NGOs had hired Somali gunmen to protect

them (and the delivery of food—with the growth of the

famine, whoever had food had power). Collocating the

HACC with the CMOC would have meant allowing unknown armed “locals” into a secure, restricted access,

military operations center and having to discern which

gun-toting Somalis were “legal” (NGO employees) and

which gun-toting Somalis should be disarmed. By all accounts, despite not being collocated, the CMOC did

everything possible to collaborate and contribute to a cooperative atmosphere.45

Of equal importance, the Somalia CMOC was collocated

with the UN-run HOC. The HOC had to be completely accessible to everyone. The HOC was able to work closely

with the CMOC, thus providing a single focal point for all

agencies operating in country.46

ISOLA 17
As if that’s not Enough

Three other important issues were common in the many

documents I read. I do not classify them as tenets since I

argue they are not critical to success because they are quite

situationally dependent. None- theless, I believe they are of

high enough interest to mobility leaders to be included.

First is the omnipresent battle to gain complete visibility of airfield operations. Specifically, I’m referring to the

inability to “see” non-DOD and/or non-US aircraft and

missions transiting “your” airfield, as well as all aircraft

ground support operations. For example, personnel at

Rinas Airport simultaneously supported aircraft from more

than 40 nations. These included everything from small,

single-engine propeller aircraft to DC-10 wide-bodies and

from commercial airliners to helicopters. These aircraft

provided combat rotary-wing operations, air ambulance

services, DV support, humanitarian (NGO) rotary-wing operations, media flights, tactical ground refueling, and other

functions.47 There is often little, if anything, that we can do

electronically within our command and control systems to

affect this problem.48 This issue simply adds emphasis to

the absolute criticality of good civil-military relations and

information sharing. 

Second, simultaneous DOD, non-DOD, combat, noncombat, fixed-wing, and helicopter operations popped up

in more than a couple of documents as an item to pay attention to. Part of the issue has to do with the pervasive

lack of visibility on total airfield operations. The other part

of the issue is the very real airspace management and air

traffic control problems that had to be solved to support

combat rotary-wing aircraft training requirements (communications-out, blacked-out tactical arrivals and departures). During the peak of Operation Shining Hope, over

200 rotary-wing sorties were flown in a single day out of

Rinas Airport by more than 40 helicopters from 13 nations

and organizations.49 In short, the addition of not only rotary-wing aircraft to fixed-wing operations but also the

combination of all six variables (DOD, non-DOD, combat,

noncombat, fixed, and rotary wing) had a multiplicative effect on the complexity of air operations beyond that which

the on-scene air commanders expected.50

18 LEADING AIR MOBILITY OPERATIONS
The final issue has to do with your security posture or,

more specifically, the changing nature of operations resulting from how you are being perceived as a threat to an

in-country faction or force. Simultaneously with the combat in Operation Allied Force in Kosovo, the United States

also led the international humanitarian relief effort at

Rinas Airport in Tirane, Albania, in support of more than

450,000 Kosovar refugees. Within days of the start of Operation Shining Hope, NATO decided to forward deploy a

battalion of Apache attack helicopters (Task Force Hawk)

in support of Allied Force. Sure enough, the only airfield

able to support the task force’s operations was, you

guessed it, Rinas Airport. Task Force Hawk grew to over

7,000 people, 40 attack helicopters, and more than 200 vehicles. This combat force, deployed in support of combat

operations against Serbia and conducting combat training

flight operations (blacked-out, communications-out, night

operations), had to be folded in on top of what had been a

high-threat but noncombat relief operation. From the locals’ perspective, the presence of the task force completely

changed the nature of operations at the airport. Rinas Airport was seen as a legitimate military target for the Serbs.

This changed the fundamental nature of the security environment for the humanitarian relief operation, and posed

a near impossible balancing act for the leaders of both

Task Force Hawk and Operation Shining Hope.51

When you are conducting humanitarian relief activities

that are recognized as pure, unbiased, and legitimate,

there is a general hope (if not outright but unspoken understanding), that your airfield operations do not constitute a threat to local factions. Hence, your force protection

measures and collective behavior reflect that understanding. However, that understanding can rapidly change with

the addition to the operation of aircraft that are perceived

to be a threat. The entire airfield operation immediately becomes suspect, and legitimacy is questioned and possibly

challenged.52 You may respond with appropriate force protection measures, and rightfully so. But, you should think

through second-, third-, and fourth-order effects on the

team of teams—the potentially changed dynamics of neutrality, information versus intelligence, threat environISOLA 19
ments, and other such issues and the strategic effects these

changes may have.

Conclusion

Smell the cheese often so you know when it is getting old.

—Spencer Johnson

—Who Moved My Cheese?

Given the operations tempo of the last dozen years, one

would presume we have vigorously undertaken to ensure

that MAF leaders charged with conducting complex humanitarian emergencies well understand the potential political quagmire such operations can pose. That presumption is only partially correct.

Our commanders need to be well equipped not only with

a doctrinal compass but also with core tenets for success

based on analysis and synthesis of a decade of US experiences. This paper has endeavored to contribute to that effort, with the hope of imprinting three key tenets. Following these tenets will not guarantee mission and political

success, but neglecting or ignoring them in all likelihood

will ensure failure, surely at the strategic/political level

and possibly at the operational and tactical levels. 

Build a team of teams and work hard to understand

your NGO, joint, coalition, and host-nation counterparts’

perspectives. Managing information is nothing new, but in

the organizationally chaotic CHE environment, it takes on

a whole new meaning and priority. Establishing simple,

fair processes for sharing information is a solid first step.

Providing a way and means—a floating process—to meet

with NGO representatives face-to-face to work issues is

necessary. There must be extraordinary effort at redundant communication and development of an information

network to aid in comprehending the overall emergency.

Always and above all, be mindful of the strategic implications that even a seemingly low-level, tactical undertaking

can have, especially in the damage it can do to your operation’s impartiality, legitimacy, and, most important, the

safety and security of your people. 

There are so many factors and components in a complex

humanitarian emergency that no single organization can

20 LEADING AIR MOBILITY OPERATIONS
possibly account for them all. However, MAF leaders in

CHEs must at least understand the inherent social, economic, political, and civil dimensions of such operations

and properly appreciate their place in the continuum of effort.53 Complex humanitarian emergencies at the supposed low end of the operational spectrum are frequently

termed small-scale contingencies, but they most certainly

are not small, limited in scale, nor without serious political consequences and military implications.

Notes

1. The genesis of this study came in the Air War College’s “International Organizations and Peacekeeping Operations” elective course. Dr.

Stephen F. “Doc” Burgess of the Air War College faculty lent his great expertise on the United Nations and peace operations, and he provided the

impetus to enlarge the original paper via his margin comment, “Publishable,” a first for me. Col Ben Young, the Air Mobility Chair to Air University and an officer of the highest caliber, has an enthusiasm for, and

knowledge of, air mobility operations and doctrine that is catching. Lt Col

Karen Kwiatkowski, a political-military officer assigned to the Office of

the Secretary of Defense, found time to provide invaluable feedback on

this study. Chris Seiple, a former Marine, of the Institute for Global Engagement, also provided a bounty of information. Lt Col June Sellers

helped by reading several drafts. Special recognition and thanks also go

to Col Clifton “Cliff” Bray for his report on Operation Shining Hope.

Colonel Bray not only afforded me access to his personal notes from his

tenure as the commander of the 86th Contingency Response Group but

also interrupted his busy schedule to read drafts, answer questions, and

provide priceless feedback. Finally, I wish to thank—and honor—the legions of air mobility war fighters and professionals who are the backbone

and unsung heroes of this nation’s defense. With style and professionalism, they plan it, schedule it, build it, on-load it, haul it, refuel it, airdrop

it, off-load it, fix it, translate it, connect it, debug it, protect it, and come

home safely only after making sure the mission is successfully completed.

Thank you.

2. Joint Vision 2020 (Washington, D.C.: Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2000),

6.3.

3. Col Robert C. Owen, USAF, “Aerospace Power and Land Power in

Peace Operations,” Aerospace Power Journal, Fall 1999, 1.

4. Ibid., 2.

5. Government Accounting Office (GAO) Report, U.N. Limitations in

Leading Missions Requiring Force to Restore Peace, GAO/NSIAD-97-34

United Nations (Washington, D.C.: GAO, 27 March 1997), 31–35.

6. Presidential Decision Directive, PDD/NSC 56, Managing Complex

Contingency Operations, May 1997, 1.

7. Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2-3, Military Operations Other

Than War, 3 July 2000, 2.

ISOLA 21
8. AFDD 2-3, iii.

9. Sarah Graham-Brown, Sanctioning Saddam: The Politics of Intervention in Iraq (London: I. B. Tauris and Co., Ltd., 1999), 102–5. 

10. Center for Humanitarian Cooperation, “International Security Assistance Force,” on-line, Internet, 23 April 2002, available from http://

www.cooperationcenter.org/library2.asp.

11. AFDD 2-3, 10.

12. Ibid., iii.

13. Col Clifton L. Bray Jr., USAF, Case Study on the 86th Contingency

Response Group (CRG), Rinas Airport, Tirane, Albania, Deployment, 4 April

1999 to 1 June 1999, 1 August 1999, 43.

14. AFDD 2-3, iii.

15. Joint Publication (JP) 3-07.3, Joint Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for Peace Operations, 12 February 1999.

16. JP 3-57, Joint Doctrine for Civil-Military Operations, 8 February

2001.

17. Guy C. Swan III, “Bridging the Non-government Organization-Military Gap,” Military Review, September/October 1996, 30.

18. Chris Seiple, “Operation Provide Comfort,” in Air War College: International Organizations and Peace Operations AY 2002, Readings, 39–43.

19. Susan B. Glasser, “Soldiers in Civilian Clothing,” Washington

Post, 28 March 2002, 20.

20. John A. Gentry, “Complex Civil-Military Operations,” Naval War

College Journal 53, no. 4 (Autumn 2000): 58.

21. Swan, 31.

22. Briefing, United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations,

Military Planning Service, Military Division, subject: Planning Process for

Military Operations, 11 December 2001. In its 62-page, military-clone,

deliberate planning document (“Planning Process for Military Operations,” produced by the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations,

Military Division), the word intelligence does not appear even once.

23. Swan, 35.

24. Ibid., 34.

25. Ibid., 32.

26. Relief Web, “Afghanistan: Information management to play key

role in aid work,” on-line, Internet, 17 April 2002, available from http://

www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf.

27. Seiple, 39.

28. Maj Aaron Wilkins, USAF, “The Civil Military Operations Center

(CMOC) in Operation Uphold Democracy (Haiti)” (Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air

Command and Staff College, March 1997), 21.

29. Institute for National Strategic Studies, Somalia Operations:

“Lessons Learned” (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University), 17.

30. Briefing, Brig Gen Foot Ingersoll, USAF, retired, at the Air Mobility Warfare Center, subject: Your Turn in the Barrel, Fort Dix, N.J., 2001,

slide 14.

31. Bray, 7.

32. Larry Thompson, “Rebuilding From Within,” Washington Post, 28

January 2002, 21.

33. Bray, 8.

22 LEADING AIR MOBILITY OPERATIONS
34. JP 3-57, IV-7 to IV-14.

35. Seiple, 41.

36. Chris Seiple, “Operation Support Hope,” in Air War College: International Organizations and Peace Operations, AY 2002, Readings, 150.

37. Bray, 7.

38. Relief Web, “Humanitarian liaison center opens in Islamabad,” online, Internet, 4 December 2001, available from http://www.reliefweb.

int/w/rwb.nsf/s/.

39. Wilkins, 23.

40. Chris Seiple, “Operation Restore Hope,” in Air War College: International Organizations and Peace Operations, AY 2002, Readings, 123.

41. Pamela Aall, Daniel Miltenberger, and Thomas G. Weiss, Guide to

IGOs, NGOs, and the Military in Peace and Relief Operations (Washington,

D.C.: US Institute of Peace, 2000), 116–19. 

42. Hinson, 10.

43. Wilkins, 13.

44. Ibid., 19.

45. Seiple, “Operation Restore Hope,” 116.

46. Institute for National Strategic Studies, 18.

47. Bray, 29.

48. Based on the author’s personal experience.

49. Bray, 12.

50. Ibid. 

51. Ibid., 13–14.

52. Ibid.

53. Seiple, “Operation Provide Comfort,” 52.

ISOLA 23
Glossary

AFDD air force doctrine document

CHE complex humanitarian

emergency

CMOC civil-military operations

center

CRG contingency response group

DIRMOBFOR director of mobility forces

DOD Department of Defense

DV distinguished visitor

HACC humanitarian assistance

coordination center

HOC humanitarian operations

center

JCMOTF joint civil-military operations

task force

JP joint publication

MAF Mobility Air Forces

MOOTW military operations other than

war

NGO nongovernmental organization

OSOCC on-site operations

coordination center

PVO private volunteer organization

SOFA status of forces agreement

TALCE Tanker-Airlift Control Element

UK United Kingdom

UN United Nations

US United States

USCINCCENTCOM United States Commander in

Chief Central Command

25