17 March 2006

Interagency, Intergovernmental

Organization, and Nongovernmental

Organization Coordination During

Joint Operations Vol I

Joint Publication 3-08
PREFACE

i

1. Scope

Volume I discusses the interagency, intergovernmental organization (IGO), and

nongovernmental organization (NGO) environment and provides fundamental principles and

guidance to facilitate coordination between the Department of Defense, and other US Government

agencies, IGOs, NGOs, and regional organizations. Volume II describes key US Government

departments and agencies, IGOs and NGOs — their core competencies, basic organizational

structures, and relationship, or potential relationship, with the Armed Forces of the United States.

2. Purpose

This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff. It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance of the Armed Forces

of the United States in operations and provides the doctrinal basis for interagency coordination

and for US military involvement in multinational operations. It provides military guidance for

the exercise of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders (JFCs)

and prescribes joint doctrine for operations and training. It provides military guidance for use

by the Armed Forces in preparing their appropriate plans. It is not the intent of this publication

to restrict the authority of the JFC from organizing the force and executing the mission in a

manner the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of the

overall objective.

3. Application

a. Joint doctrine established in this publication applies to the commanders of combatant

commands, subunified commands, joint task forces, subordinate components of these commands,

and the Services.

b. The guidance in this publication is authoritative; as such, this doctrine will be followed except

when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. If conflicts arise

between the contents of this publication and the contents of Service publications, this publication will

take precedence unless the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, normally in coordination with the other

members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has provided more current and specific guidance. Commanders

of forces operating as part of a multinational (alliance or coalition) military command should
ii

Preface

JP 3-08

 follow multinational doctrine and procedures ratified by the United States. For doctrine and

procedures not ratified by the United States, commanders should evaluate and follow the

multinational command’s doctrine and procedures, where applicable and consistent with US law,

regulations, and doctrine.

For the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

WALTER L. SHARP

Lieutenant General, USA

Director, Joint Staff
SUMMARY OF CHANGES

REVISION OF JOINT PUBLICATION 3-08, DATED 9 OCTOBER 1996

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

iii

Expands coverage of intergovernmental and nongovernmental coordination

Includes details of the Department of Homeland Security’s role in civil support

Explains the role of the Homeland Security Council

Adds discussion of the Department of Defense’s role in homeland security

Explains the new relationships for Federal interagency coordination during

homeland defense and civil support

Revises the discussion on organizing for successful interagency,

intergovernmental organization, and nongovernmental organization

coordination

Adds coverage on forming a joint task force

Updates descriptions of Federal Agencies, intergovernmental organizations,

and nongovernmental organizations
iv

Summary of Changes

JP 3-08

Intentionally Blank
TABLE OF CONTENTS

v

PAGE

VOLUME I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO INTERAGENCY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL

ORGANIZATION, AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

COORDINATION

• Purpose ...................................................................................................................... I-1

• Coordinating Efforts .................................................................................................. I-2

• The Growing Requirement for Close Coordination..................................................... I-4

• Command Relationships ............................................................................................ I-4

• Considerations for Effective Cooperation ................................................................... I-5

• Comparison of United States Agency Organizational Structures ................................. I-6

• Organizational Environments ..................................................................................... I-6

• Building Coordination.............................................................................................. I-10

• Media Impact on Coordination ................................................................................. I-12

CHAPTER II

ESTABLISHED INTERAGENCY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION,

AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION RELATIONSHIPS

• Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and Nongovernmental

Organization Connectivity .................................................................................... II-1

• Historical Basis of the Interagency Process............................................................... II-1

• The National Security Council System ..................................................................... II-2

• Federal Interagency Coordination: Homeland Defense and Civil Support ................ II-6

• Department of Defense Coordination of Civil Support with State

and Local Authorities........................................................................................... II-12

• Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and Nongovernmental

Organization Coordination: Foreign Operations .................................................. II-13

• Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and Nongovernmental

Organization Structure in Foreign Countries ........................................................ II-17

• The Role of Intergovernmental Organizations ......................................................... II-20

• The Nongovernmental Organizations’Connection to Joint Operations..................... II-24
vi

Table of Contents

JP 3-08

CHAPTER III

ORGANIZING FOR SUCCESSFUL INTERAGENCY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL

ORGANIZATION, AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

COORDINATION

• Organizing for Success ........................................................................................... III-1

• Interagency and Nongovernmental Organization Crisis Response:

 Domestic Operations............................................................................................. III-3

• Crisis Response: Foreign Operations ...................................................................... III-8

• Forming a Joint Task Force ................................................................................... III-12

• Joint Task Force Mission Analysis......................................................................... III-14

• Organizational Tools for the Joint Task Force ........................................................ III-16

• Other Joint Task Force Interagency Considerations ............................................... III-21

• Information Management ...................................................................................... III-25

• Training and Readiness ......................................................................................... III-26

GLOSSARY

Part I Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................... GL-1

Part II Terms and Definitions............................................................................... GL-5

FIGURE

I-1 Comparison of United States Agency Organizational Structures ...................... I-7

II-1 National Security Council Organization ........................................................ II-4

II-2 Incident Command System/Unified Command............................................. II-11

II-3 Notional Joint Interagency Coordination Group Structure ............................. II-21

III-1 Model for Coordination Between Military and Nonmilitary

 Organizations - Domestic Civil Support ..................................................... III-4

III-2 Model for Coordination Between Military and Nonmilitary

 Organizations - Foreign Operations ............................................................ III-9

III-3 United States Government Foreign Disaster Assistance Response Team ..... III-10

III-4 Joint Task Force Establishing Authority Responsibilities ............................ III-13

III-5 Notional Composition of a Civil-Military Operations Center ...................... III-18

III-6 Civil-Military Operations Center Functions................................................ III-20
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

COMMANDER’S OVERVIEW

•

•

•

vii

Provides an Introduction to Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and

Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

Discusses Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and

Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

Covers Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental

Organization, and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

The Purpose of Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and

Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

Attaining our national

objectives requires the

efficient and effective use

of the diplomatic,

informational, economic,

and military instruments

of national power

supported by and

coordinated with those of

our allies and various

intergovernmental,

nongovernmental, and

regional organizations.

Interagency coordination is the coordination that occurs between

agencies of the US Government (USG), including the Department of

Defense (DOD), for the purpose of accomplishing an objective.

Similarly, in the context of DOD involvement, intergovernmental

organization (IGO) and nongovernmental organization (NGO)

coordination refer to coordination between elements of DOD and

IGOs or NGOs to achieve an objective.

The integration of US political and military objectives and the

subsequent translation of these objectives into action have

always been essential to success at all levels of operation.

Military operations must be coordinated with the activities of other

agencies of the USG, IGOs, NGOs, regional organizations, the

operations of foreign forces, and activities of various host nation (HN)

agencies. Sometimes the joint force commander (JFC) draws on the

capabilities of other organizations; sometimes the JFC provides

capabilities to other organizations; and sometimes the JFC merely

deconflicts his activities with those of others. Interagency coordination

forges the vital link between the military and the diplomatic,

informational, and economic instruments of power of the USG.

Successful interagency, IGO, and NGO coordination enables

the USG to build international support, conserve resources, and conduct

coherent operations that efficiently achieve shared international goals.
viii

Executive Summary

JP 3-08

Within the US

Government (USG), the

Armed Forces and other

USG agencies perform in

supported and supporting

roles with other

commands and agencies.

Harnessing the power of

disparate organizations

with competing priorities

and procedures is a

daunting task.

During combat operations such as Operation ENDURING

FREEDOM and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM or in foreign

humanitarian assistance (FHA) operations such as PROVIDE

COMFORT, DOD was the lead agency and was supported by other

agencies. When DOD is tasked to provide military support to civil

authorities, its forces perform in a supporting role. Whether supported

or supporting, close coordination between the military and other

non-DOD agencies is a key to successful interagency

coordination.

USG agencies — including DOD — may be placed in supported or

supporting relationships with IGOs. Even when placed in a supporting

role, however, US military forces always remain under the command

authority of the President. In many operations though, USG agencies’

relationship with IGOs is neither supported nor supporting. In such

cases, cooperation is voluntary and will be based upon shared goals

and good will. NGOs do not operate within military, governmental, or

IGO hierarchies. Therefore, the relationship between the Armed Forces

and NGOs is neither supported nor supporting.

Coordinating and integrating efforts between the joint force and

other government agencies, IGOs, and NGOs should not be

equated to the command and control of a military operation.

Military operations depend upon a command structure that is often

very different from that of civilian organizations. These differences

may present significant challenges to coordination efforts. The various

USG agencies’ different, and sometimes conflicting, goals, policies,

procedures, and decision-making techniques make unity of effort a

challenge. Still more difficult, some IGOs and NGOs may have policies

that are explicitly antithetical to those of the USG, and particularly the

US military.

The following basic steps support an orderly and systematic approach

to building and maintaining coordination:

Forge a collective definition of the problem in clear and

unambiguous terms. Differences in individual assumptions and

organizational perspectives can often cloud a clear understanding of

the problem.

Command Relationships

Building Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and

Nongovernmental Organization Coordination
ix

Executive Summary

Understand the overall USG strategic goal in addition to the

Objectives, End State, and Transition Criteria for each involved

organization or agency. Commanders and decision makers should

seek a clearly defined military end state supported by attainable

objectives and transition criteria.

Understand the Differences Between US National Objectives,

End State and Transition Criteria and those of IGOs and NGOs.

Although appropriate IGOs and NGOs may participate in some level

in defining the problem, ultimately their goals and objectives are

independent of those of the US military.

Establish a Common Frame of Reference. Differences in

terminology and — in the case of foreign organizations — the use of

English as a second language complicates coordination.

Capitalize on Experience. Review the after-action reports and

lessons learned using the Joint and Services Lessons Learned Systems,

including the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and

Stabilization (S/CRS) Essential Task Matrix, and the US Army

Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute to assess proposed

courses of action (COAs) and to reduce the requirement to relearn on

the job.

Develop COAs or Options. Commanders and their staffs should

focus on the military enabling capabilities that contribute to national

security policy objective attainment and are part of the interagency

plan of action.

Establish Responsibility. A common sense of ownership and

commitment toward resolution is achievable when all participants

understand what needs to be done and agree upon the means to

accomplish it.

Plan for the Transition of Key Responsibilities, Capabilities,

and Functions. In most multiagency operations, civilian organizations

will remain engaged long after the military has accomplished its assigned

tasks and departed the operational area. Therefore, prior to employing

military forces, it is imperative to plan for the transition of responsibility

for specific actions or tasks from military to nonmilitary entities.

Direct All Means Toward Unity of Effort. Lead agency

responsibility is situationally dependent, with the National Security

Council (NSC) staff setting the agenda for and normally designating

the lead agency for situations in which DOD will participate. While
x

Executive Summary

JP 3-08

not immutable, the principle of lead agency is applied to a variety of

functions requiring interagency coordination.

The NSC advises and assists the President in integrating all aspects of

national security policy — domestic, foreign, military, intelligence, and

economic (in conjunction with the National Economic Council).

Together with supporting interagency working groups (some permanent

and others ad hoc), high-level steering groups, executive committees,

and task forces, the National Security Council System (NSCS)

provides the foundation for interagency coordination in the

development and implementation of national security policy.

The NSC is the President’s principal forum for coordinating discussion

of national security and foreign policy matters with his senior national

security advisors and cabinet officials. The council also serves as the

President’s principal arm for coordinating these policies among various

government agencies.

NSC Organization. The members of the NSC constitute the

President’s personal and principal staff for national security

issues. The council tracks and directs the development, execution,

and implementation of national security policies for the President but

does not normally implement policy. Rather, it takes a central

coordinating or monitoring role in the development of policy and options

depending on the desires of the President and the National Security

Advisor. National Security Presidential Directive-1 establishes

three levels of formal interagency committees for coordinating

and making decisions onnational security issues. The advisory bodies

include the following:

The NSC/Principals Committee is the senior Cabinet level

interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting

national security.

The NSC/Deputies Committee is the senior sub-Cabinet-level

(deputy secretary level) interagency forum for consideration of

policy issues affecting national security.

The NSC Policy Coordination Committees are the main dayto-day fora for interagency coordination of national security policy.

The National Security Council System

The National Security

Council (NSC) is the

principal forum to advise

the President with respect

to the integration of

domestic, foreign, and

military policies relating

to national security. The

NSC System is the process

to coordinate executive

departments and agencies

in the effective

development and

implementation of those

national security policies.
xi

Executive Summary

Federal Interagency Coordination: Civil Support

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) whose mission is to lead the unified national

effort to secure America by preventing and deterring terrorist attacks

and protecting against and responding to threats and hazards to the

nation. As such, DHS is the lead federal agency for homeland security.

While the most visible support occurs during domestic emergencies

or major disasters, the majority of DOD’s efforts are directed toward

civilian law enforcement or intelligence agencies. This assistance is

known as civil support within the defense community because

the assistance will always be in support of a lead federal agency.

Requests for assistance from another agency may be predicated on

mutual agreements between agencies or stem from a Presidential

designation of a Federal Disaster Area or a Federal State of Emergency.

DOD typically only responds after the resources of other federal

agencies, state and local governments to include National Guard, and

NGOs have been exhausted or when military assets are required.

The Department of Defense works closely with other Federal agencies

in various domestic arenas. In addition to participating in interagency

steering groups and councils, DOD is a partner in several national

level incident management and emergency response plans such

as the Federal Response Plan (as modified by the Initial National

Response Plan), the National Contingency Plan, the Federal

Radiological Emergency Response Plan,the United States Government

Interagency Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan, Mass

Immigration Emergency Plan, and the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. Additionally, the National

Response Plan will integrate Federal government domestic prevention,

preparedness, response, and recovery plans into one all-discipline,

all-hazards plan.

In exceptional circumstances and with appropriate

authorization, military forces may also conduct missions to help

the Department of Justice or other Federal law enforcement

agencies (LEAs) assist Federal, state, or local LEAs. Military

support to civilian law enforcement agencies includes military assistance

for civil disturbances. Other types of these operations include

counterdrug, combating terrorism, general support such as training

civilian law enforcement officials, and critical infrastructure protection.

The Armed Forces of the

United States are

authorized under certain

conditions to provide

assistance to US civil

authorities.
xii

Executive Summary

JP 3-08

The Department of State (DOS) advises and assists the

President in planning and implementing the foreign policy of

the United States. DOD coordinates with DOS to carry out foreign

policy objectives, which include bilateral and multilateral military

relationships; treaties and agreements involving other DOD activities

or interests such as: technology transfer, armaments cooperation and

control, FHA, peace operations (including those conducted under

United Nations auspices), and other contingencies.

The combatant commander’s regional focus is paralleled in DOS in its

geographic bureaus. Similarly, many other USG agencies are regionally

organized. Within a theater, the geographic combatant commander

is the focal point for planning and implementation of regional

and theater military strategies that require interagency, IGO,

and NGO coordination.

The joint interagency coordination group (JIACG) is an

interagency staff group that establishes regular, timely, and collaborative

working relationships between civilian and military operational planners.

Composed of USG civilian and military experts accredited to the

combatant commander and tailored to meet the requirements of a

supported combatant commander, the JIACG provides the combatant

commander with the capability to collaborate at the operational level

with other USG civilian agencies and departments. JIACGs

complement the interagency coordination that takes place at the strategic

level through the NSCS.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Organization for Security

and Cooperation in Europe are regional security organizations, while

the African Union (formerly the Organization of African Unity) and the

Organization of American States are general regional organizations. A

new trend toward subregional organizations is also evident, particularly

in Africa where, for example, the Economic Community of West African

States has taken on some security functions. These organizations have

defined structures, roles, and responsibilities, and may be equipped

with the resources and expertise to participate in complex interagency

coordination.

Within the Executive

Branch, the Department

of State is the lead US

foreign affairs agency.

Intergovernmental

organizations may be

established on a global or

regional basis and may

have general or

specialized purposes.

The Role of Intergovernmental Organizations

Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and

Nongovernmental Organization Coordination: Foreign Operations
xiii

Executive Summary

The Nongovernmental Organizations’ Connection to Joint Operations

Where long-term problems precede a deepening crisis, NGOs are

frequently on scene before the US military and are willing to operate in

high-risk areas. They will most likely remain long after military forces

have departed. Because of their capability to respond quickly

and effectively to crises, they can lessen the civil-military

resources that a commander would otherwise have to devote

to an operation.

Working alone, alongside the US military, or with other US agencies,

NGOs are assisting in all the world’s trouble spots where humanitarian

or other assistance is needed. NGOs may range in size and experience

from those with multimillion dollar budgets and decades of global

experience in developmental and humanitarian relief to newly created

small organizations dedicated to a particular emergency or disaster.

Whereas the military’s initial objective is stabilization and security for

its own forces, NGOs seek to address humanitarian needs first and

are often unwilling to subordinate their objectives to achievement of an

end state which they had no part in determining. The extent to which

specific NGOs are willing to cooperate with the military can thus vary

considerably.

When campaign, deliberate, or crisis action planning is required, the

degree to which military and civilian components can be integrated

and harmonized will bear directly on the efficiency and success of the

collective effort. The combatant commander, through a commander's

strategic concept, builds the framework for integration of interagency,

IGO, and NGO activities into Annex V of the operation plan.

Subordinate JFCs integrates interagency, IGO, and NGO activities

into their options. Within the area of responsibility and the joint

operations area, appropriate decision-making structures are established

at combatant command, joint task force (JTF) headquarters (HQ),

and tactical levels in order to coordinate and resolve military, political,

humanitarian, and other issues.

Nongovernmental

organizations (NGOs) are

independent, diverse,

flexible, grassrootsfocused, primary relief

providers.

NGOs are playing an

increasingly important

role in the international

arena.

To the extent feasible,

joint planning should

include key participants

from the outset.

Organizing for Success
xiv

Executive Summary

JP 3-08

The combatant commander develops the mission statement and concept

of operations based upon direction from the Secretary of Defense as

communicated through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If

developed, the NSC’s interagency political/military plan may affect

the mission statement.

The JFC may establish a joint civil-military operations task

force to meet a specific contingency mission or to support humanitarian,

nation assistance operations, or a theater campaign of limited duration.

There may be a requirement for civil affairs representation because of

their professional knowledge of the issues involved, as well as their

expertise in dealing with other USG agencies, IGOs, and NGOs.

Unlike the military, most USG agencies and NGOs are not equipped

and organized to create separate staffs at the strategic, operational,

and tactical levels, with the result that JTF personnel interface with

individuals who are coordinating their organization’s activities at more

than one level. The complex aspects of the interagency, IGO, and

NGO process require the JTF HQ to be especially flexible, responsive,

and cognizant of the capabilities of US agencies, IGOs, the HN, and

NGOs. Depending on the type of contingency operation, the extent

of military operations, and degree of interagency, IGO, and NGO

involvement, the focal point for operational and tactical level

coordination with civilian agencies may occur at the JTF HQ,

the civil-military operations center, or the humanitarian

operations center.

Volume I discusses the interagency, IGO, and NGO environment and

provides fundamental principles and guidance to facilitate coordination

between the Department of Defense, and other USG agencies, IGOs,

NGOs, and regional organizations. Volume II describes key USG

departments and agencies and IGOs and NGOs — their core

competencies, basic organizational structures, and relationship, or

potential relationship, with the Armed Forces of the United States.

When it is necessary to

engage the military

instrument of national

power, and to establish a

joint task force (JTF), the

JTF establishing

authority will normally be

a combatant commander.

JTFs in the interagency

process.

CONCLUSION

Forming a Joint Task Force
“When the United States undertakes military operations, the Armed Forces of the

United States are only one component of a national-level effort involving all

instruments of national power. Instilling unity of effort at the national level is

necessarily a cooperative endeavor involving a number of Federal departments

and agencies. In certain operations, agencies of states, localities, or foreign

countries may also be involved. The President establishes guidelines for civilmilitary integration and normally disseminates decisions and monitors execution

through the NSC [National Security Council].”

Joint Publication 1, Joint Warfare of the Armed Forces of the United States

1. Purpose

a. Interagency coordination is the interaction that occurs between agencies of the US

Government (USG), including the Department of Defense (DOD), for the purpose of

accomplishing an objective. Similarly, in the context of DOD involvement, intergovernmental

organization (IGO) and nongovernmental organization (NGO) coordination refer to

coordination between elements of DOD and IGOs or NGOs to achieve an objective.

b. The integration of US political and military objectives and the subsequent translation

of these objectives into action have always been essential to success at all levels of operation.

The global environment that is characterized by regional instability, failed states, increased

weapons proliferation, global terrorism, and unconventional threats to US citizens, interests,

and territories, requires even greater cooperation. Attaining our national objectives requires the

efficient and effective use of the diplomatic, informational, military, and economic instruments

of national power supported by and coordinated with that of our allies and various

intergovernmental, nongovernmental, and regional security organizations.

c. Military operations must be strategically integrated and operational and tactically coordinated

with the activities of other agencies of the USG, IGOs, NGOs, regional organizations, the operations of

foreign forces, and activities of various host nation (HN) agencies. Sometimes the joint force commander

(JFC) draws on the capabilities of other organizations; sometimes the JFC provides capabilities to other

organizations; and sometimes the JFC merely deconflicts his activities with those of others. These same

organizations may be involved in prehostilities operations, activities during combat, and in the transition

to posthostilities activities. Roles and relationships among agencies and organizations, combatant

commands, US state and local governments, and overseas with the US chief of mission (COM),

and country team in a US embassy, must be clearly understood. Interagency coordination forges

the vital link between the military and the diplomatic, informational, and economic instruments

of national power. Successful interagency, IGO, and NGO coordination helps enable the USG

to build international support, conserve resources, and conduct coherent operations that efficiently

achieve shared goals.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO INTERAGENCY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL

ORGANIZATION, AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

COORDINATION

I-1
I-2

Chapter I

JP 3-08

2. Coordinating Efforts

a. A common thread throughout the range of military operations, is the involvement of a

large number of agencies and organizations — many with indispensable practical competencies

and significant legal responsibilities — that interact with the Armed Forces of the United States

and our multinational counterparts.

b. The Military Component. Military forces have long coordinated with the headquarters

(HQ) or operating elements of USG departments and agencies to include the Department of

State (DOS), Department of Justice (DOJ), and Department of Transportation, the Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the adjutants general of the 50 states and four territories.

Increasingly, participants include state and local agencies, additional USG agencies and

departments (e.g., Department of Homeland Security [DHS]), coalition partners, IGOs such as

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), NGOs such as Doctors Without Borders and

Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, the United Nations (UN), and agencies of

the HN.

(1) Because the solution to a problem seldom, if ever, resides within the capability

of just one agency, campaign and operation plans (OPLANs) must be crafted to recognize

the core competencies of the myriad agencies, coordinating military activities and resources

with those of other agencies to achieve the desired end state.

(2) In a national emergency, civil support (CS) operation, or complex contingency

operation (CCO), DOD and the military often serve in a supporting role to other agencies and

organizations. Commanders and their staffs should develop an understanding of how military

operations and capabilities can be coordinated with those of other agencies and organizations to

focus and optimize the military’s contributions to accomplish the desired end state.

c. A Forum of Expertise. Each US, federal, state or local agency, IGO, and NGO

brings its own culture, philosophy, goals, practices, and skills to the task of coordination.

The military also brings its own organizational dynamics, characteristics, ideas, and values.

This diversity is a strength of the interagency, IGO, and NGO process. In one collective forum,

the process integrates many views, capabilities, and options.

d. Gathering the Right Resources. During this period of great instability and uncertainty

the challenge to our nation’s leadership, commanders at all levels, and the civilian leadership of

agencies and organizations is to recognize what resources are available and how to work

together to effectively apply them. Despite potential philosophical and operational differences,

all efforts must be coordinated to create an atmosphere of cooperation that ultimately contributes

to national unity of effort. Therefore, pursuit of interagency, IGO, and NGO coordination and

cooperation as a process should be viewed as a means to mission accomplishment, not an end in

itself. While some loss of organizational freedom of action is often necessary to attain full

cooperation, a zeal for consensus should not compromise the authority, roles, or core competencies

of individual agencies.
I-3

Introduction to Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and

Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

e. Within the USG, the National Security Strategy (NSS) guides the development, integration, and

coordination of all the instruments of national power to accomplish national objectives. The President

signs the NSS, and the National Security Council (NSC) is the principal policy-making forum

responsible for the strategic-level implementation of the NSS. This coordination sets the stage

for strategic guidance provided to the combatant commands, Services, and various DOD agencies, and

forms the foundation for operational and tactical level guidance.

f. The National Strategy for Homeland Security seeks a coordinated and focused approach

from our entire society — the Federal government, state and local governments, the private

sector, and the American public to mobilize and organize our nation to secure the US homeland.

Achieving this entails DOD-led homeland defense and non-DOD-led CS missions. Within the

CS arena federal law, the Federal Response Plan (FRP) (as modified by the Initial National

Response Plan), and its Terrorism Incident Annex, other federal plans, legislation, and directives

give DOD key roles in providing support to civil authorities for disasters, catastrophes,

infrastructure protection, and other emergencies. These will expand the military’s requirement

to integrate and coordinate with state and local agencies as well as USG agencies like the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), CIA, and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

g. In accordance with Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD)-5, a National

Incident Management System (NIMS) and a National Response Plan (NRP) are the responsibility

of the Secretary of the DHS.

(1) NIMS. This system provides a consistent, nationwide approach for federal, state,

and local governments to work effectively and efficiently together to prepare for, respond to,

and recover from domestic incidents.

(2) NRP. While the Initial NRP provides, on an interim basis, the domestic incident

management authorities, roles, and responsibilities of the Secretary DHS, as defined in HSPD-5,

the NRP will integrate USG domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans

into one all-discipline, all-hazards plan.

For additional information see the National Strategy for Homeland Security and Joint Publication

(JP) 3-26, Joint Doctrine for Homeland Security.

h. The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction states that nuclear,

biological, and chemical weapons in the possession of hostile states and terrorists represents one

of the greatest security challenges facing the United States today. Additionally, it states that the

United States must pursue a comprehensive interagency strategy to counter this threat in all of

its dimensions.

i. Focus of Theater Operations. Joint force operations typically involve close coordination

with forces and agencies outside the military chain of command. According to guidance in JP

3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations, JFCs should: “. . . ensure that their joint operations are

integrated and synchronized in time, space, and purpose with the actions of other military

forces (multinational operations) and nonmilitary organizations ([US] government agencies
I-4

Chapter I

JP 3-08

such as the Agency for International Development, NGOs, and the UN). Activities and operations with

such nonmilitary organizations can be complex and may require considerable effort by JFCs, their staffs,

and subordinate commanders, especially during military operations other than war.” The extent of IGO

and NGO cooperation and coordination with the military will vary and will be contingent on the nature

of the mission and US military’s role in that operation (belligerent, peacekeeper, provider of aid.)

3. The Growing Requirement for Close Coordination

a. The number of ongoing and potential operations requiring integrated US

interagency, IGO, and NGO activities has expanded dramatically over the past few years.

Moreover, given the nature of the challenges facing the US and the international community,

this trend is likely to continue. Several factors contribute to this.

b. During the Cold War, ideological divisions prevented the UN and other actors from

stepping in to prevent or end conflicts that were often proxies for superpower competition. With

the end of this bipolar world system, however, the UN and other organizations have instituted

record numbers of peace operations (PO) and CCOs. In order to resolve these crises, such

operations inevitably require close cooperation between various organizations that contribute

military, humanitarian, political, economic, and other forms of expertise and resources.

c. The National Security Strategy of September 2002 notes that the US is now threatened

less by conquering states than by failing ones that willingly or unwittingly provide a haven for

terrorists. The terrorist threat is further compounded by state sponsors of terrorism and by the

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the means to deliver them over long

distances. Meeting these challenges requires the integration of all instruments of US national

power – economic measures to cut off terrorist financing, diplomatic initiatives to eliminate

terrorists’ political support, informational activities to combat extremist ideologies, and military

operations to take action against identified threats.

4. Command Relationships

a. Within the USG, the Armed Forces and other USG agencies perform in both

supported and supporting roles with other commands and agencies. However, this is not

the support command relationship as described in joint doctrine. Relationships between the

Armed Forces and other government agencies, IGOs, and NGOs should not be equated to the

command and control (C2) of a military operation. During combat operations such as DESERT

STORM or in foreign humanitarian assistance (FHA) operations such as PROVIDE COMFORT,

DOD was the lead agency and was supported by other agencies. When DOD is tasked to

provide CS, its forces perform in a supporting role. Whether supported or supporting, close

coordination between the military and other non-DOD agencies is key.

b. NGOs do not operate within military, governmental, or IGO hierarchies. If formed, the

civil-military operations center (CMOC) is the focal point where US military forces

coordinate any support to NGOs. As private organizations, NGOs are very unlikely to place

themselves in a supporting role to the military. They may, however, accept grant funding from IGOs or
I-5

Introduction to Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and

Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

USG agencies like United States Agency for International Development (USAID), thereby taking the

role of “implementing partners.” While this relationship is not as strong as command authority or even a

contract, it does give the granting agency oversight authority over how the funds are spent.

For additional information on the CMOC, refer to JP 3-57, Joint Doctrine for Civil-Military

Operations, and JP 3-57.1, Joint Doctrine for Civil Affairs.

5. Considerations for Effective Cooperation

a. Coordination and integration among the joint force and other government agencies,

IGOs, and NGOs should not be equated to the C2 of a military operation. Military operations

depend upon a command structure that is often very different from that of civilian organizations.

These differences may present significant challenges to coordination efforts. The various USG

agencies’ different, and sometimes conflicting, goals, policies, procedures, and decision-making

techniques make unity of effort a challenge. Still more difficult, some IGOs and NGOs may

have policies that are explicitly antithetical to those of the USG, and particularly the US military.

b. The military tends to rely on structured decision-making processes, detailed planning,

the use of standardized techniques and procedures, and sophisticated C2 systems to coordinate

and synchronize operations. Civilian agencies may employ similar principles but may not have

the same degree of internal C2 as the US military. Across agency lines, IGO and NGOs tend to

coordinate because there is a perceived mutually supportive interest, not because of any formalized

C2. Close, continuous interagency and interdepartmental coordination and cooperation

are necessary to overcome confusion over objectives, inadequate structure or procedures, and

bureaucratic and personal limitations. Action will follow understanding.

c. As USG involvement in PO and CCOs increased during the 1990s, the Executive Branch

responded by promulgating two Presidential decision directives (PDDs) that have significantly

shaped subsequent interagency coordination.

(1) PDD-25, US Policy – Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations, was signed in

May 1994 as the result of an interagency review of our nation’s peacekeeping policies and

programs. This review aimed to develop a comprehensive peace operations policy framework

suited to the realities of the post-Cold War period. PDD–25 addressed six major issues of

reform and improvement. One in particular defined interagency policy, lines of authority, roles,

and missions for DOD and DOS when coordinating peace operations. Described in PDD–25 as

“improving the way the USG manages and funds peace operations,” supporting direction follows:

(a) The policy directive created a new “shared responsibility” approach to managing

and funding UN peace operations within the USG. Under this approach, DOD took lead management

and funding responsibility for those UN operations that involved US combat units and those that are

likely to involve combat (e.g., UN Charter Chapter VII). This approach ensured that military expertise

was brought to bear on those operations with a significant military component. DOS retained lead

management and funding responsibility for traditional peacekeeping operations that did not involve US
I-6

Chapter I

JP 3-08

combat units. In all cases, DOS remains responsible for the conduct of diplomacy and instructions to

embassies and our UN mission in New York.

(b) PDD–25 therefore, elevated DOD to the status of lead federal agency (LFA)

for certain PO, thereby requiring it to lead the planning and management of operations that have

combat units and for peace enforcement missions, in coordination with operations with other

nonmilitary organizations.

(2) Managing Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations

(a) The current administration recently issued NSPD-44 “Management of Interagency

Efforts Concerning Reconstruction and Stabilization”, which gives responsibility to the Department of

State to coordinate, lead, and strengthen USG efforts to prepare, plan for, and conduct reconstruction

and stabilization missions and to harmonize efforts with US military plans and operations.

(b) DOD Directive 3000.05 “Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and

Reconstruction Operations” outlines how Department of Defense will fulfill its role as defined under

NSPD-44. It notes that integrated civilian and military efforts are key to successful stability operation

and charges Department of Defense to work closely with USG departments and agencies, foreign

governments, global and regional interational organizations, non-governmental organizations, and the

private sector. USD(P), with CJCS support, is responsible for representing the Secretary in discussions

on stability operations policy and strategy with other USG departments and agencies, foreign governments,

IOs, NGOs, and the private sector. COCOMs are responsible for engaging relevant partners in

coordination with USD(P) and CJCS.

6. Comparison of United States Agency Organizational Structures

a. One difficulty of coordinating operations among US agencies is determining

counterparts among them. Another significant difficulty is the determination of the LFA for a

given interagency activity. Organizational differences exist between the military hierarchy and

other USG departments and agencies, particularly at the operational level where counterparts

to the geographic combatant commander seldom exist. Further, overall lead authority in a

CCO is likely to be exercised not by the geographic combatant commander, but by a US

ambassador or other senior civilian, who will provide policy and goals for all USG agencies and military

organizations in the operation.

b. Decision making at the lowest levels is frequently thwarted because field coordinators may not

be vested with the authority to speak for parent agencies, departments, or organizations. Figure I-1

depicts comparative organizational structures using the three “levels of war.”

7. Organizational Environments

a. In order for the interagency process to be successful, it should bring together the interests of

multiple agencies, departments, and organizations. This cohesion is even more complex than the

multidimensional nature of military combat operations. When the other instruments of national power
I-7

Introduction to Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and

Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

— diplomatic, informational, and economic — are applied, the complexity and the number and types of

interactions expand significantly. The essence of interagency coordination is the effective

integration of multiple agencies with their diverse perspectives and agendas.

b. The Nature of Interagency Bureaucracy. Interagency coordination processes tend to be

bureaucratic and diffused, inhibiting the concentration of power within a small or select group of agencies.

The executive branch of the Federal government is organized by function with each department performing

Figure I-1. Comparison of United States Agency Organizational Structures

COMPARISON OF UNITED STATES AGENCY ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES

ARMED FORCES

OF THE UNITED

STATES

EXECUTIVE

DEPARTMENTS &

AGENCIES

STATE & LOCAL

GOVERNMENT

STRATEGIC

Secretary of Defense

Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff

Joint Chiefs of Staff

Combatant Commander (1)

National Headquarters

Department Secretaries

Ambassador/Embassy(3)

Governor

OPERATIONAL

Combatant Commander

Commander, Joint

Task Force (CJTF) (2)

Defense Coordinating

Officer/Defense

Coordinating Element

Ambassador/Embassy

Liaisons (4)

Federal Coordinating

Officer or Principal

Federal Official

Regional Office

State Adjutant General

State Coordinating

Officer

Office of Emergency

Services

Department/Agency

TACTICAL

CJTF

Components

Service

Functional

Ambassador/Embassy

Field Office

US Agency for International

Development (USAID)/

Office of Foreign Disaster

Assistance(OFDA)/

Disaster Assistance

Response Team (DART)/

Liaison (5) Response Team

US Refugee Coordinator

National Guard

County Commissioner

Mayor/Manager

County

City (e.g., Police

Department)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The combatant commander, within the context of unified action, may function at both the strategic and

operational levels in coordinating the application of all instruments of national power with the actions of other

military forces, United States Government (USG) agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), regional

organizations, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and corporations toward theater strategic objectives.

The CJTF, within the context of unified action, functions at both the operational and tactical levels in

coordinating the application of all instruments of national power with the actions of other military forces, USG

agencies, NGOs, regional organizations, IGOs, and corporations toward theater operational objectives.

The Ambassador and Embassy (which includes the country team) function at the strategic h ,operational, dna

tactical levels and may support joint operation planning conducted by a combatant commander or CJTF.

Liaisons at the operational level may include the Foreign Policy Advisor or Political Advisor assigned to the

combatant commander by the Department of State, the Central Intelligence Agency liaison officer, or any

other US agency respresentative assigned to the Joint Interagency Coordinating Group or otherwise

assigned to the combatant commander’s staff.

USAID’s OFDA provides its rapidly deployable DART in response to international disasters. A DART

provides specialists, trained in a variety of disaster relief skills, to assist US embassies and USAID

missions with the management of USG response to disasters.
I-8

Chapter I

JP 3-08

certain core tasks. In executing national security policy, the NSC plays a critical role in overcoming

bureaucracy and orchestrating interagency cooperation.

(1) Core Values and Requirements. Each agency has core values and legal

requirements that it will not compromise. These values form the foundation upon which key

functions of the agency grow. In any interaction, all participants must be constantly aware that

each agency will continuously cultivate and create external sources of support and maneuver to

protect its core values.

(2) Insular Vision. Individual agency perspective and agendas complicate policy

development. Protection of their institutional prerogatives is oftentimes an important driver

of the various USG agencies’ position, which may not always coincide with a common approach

to international security issues.

(3) Reduction of Uncertainty. Many bureaucracies try to standardize their

operations but often fail to prepare for crisis management. Uncertainty increases in a crisis

and it is likely that compromises will be made. Compromise may bring the sacrifice of power,

security, or prestige. Uncertainty allows for the coexistence of varying views about the likely

outcomes of a given action; these differences in viewpoint often lead to conflicting interests.

An organization will seek to reduce uncertainty and lessen the threat to its own stability.

Information can reduce uncertainty and increase an organization’s power. Thus, information

equates to power in interagency coordination, as it provides those who possess it a decided

advantage in the decision-making process.

c. Consensus Within the Department of Defense. Before attempting to gain consensus

in the interagency arena, it must first be attained within DOD. The various elements — Office

of the Secretary of Defense (SecDef), the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Joint Staff, Defense agencies

and DOD field activities, Military Departments, and combatant commands — should develop a

common position on the appropriate military role in interagency coordination before broadening

the discussion to include other agencies, departments, and organizations. DOD has a common

culture, procedures, and a hierarchical structure.

THE VALUE OF PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS

General Jacob Devers, US Army commander of the 6th Army Group in World

War II, wrote that in coalition operations the personalities and the ambitions

of the senior commanders of each of the Armed Services of the Allied Powers

under his command were critical toward making the coalition work.

General Schwarzkopf and Saudi Arabia’s Lieutenant General Khaled were

able to forge the bonds of mutual respect and create an atmosphere that

permeated both of their staffs and impacted on every action and every

decision.

The Combined Civil Affairs Task Force, which assisted in the reconstruction

of Kuwait after the Gulf War, was able to obtain interagency cooperation
I-9

Introduction to Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and

Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

and establish subordinate interagency support based largely on personal

relationships. Colonel Randall Elliot, USAR, who put the organization

together, was also the senior analyst in the Near East Division of the

Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He knew the

US Ambassador-designate to Kuwait, Edward “Skip” Gnehm, and was able

to recruit Major Andrew Natsios, USAR, whose civilian job was Director of

United States Agency for International Development’s (USAID’s) Office of

US Foreign Disaster Assistance. Major Natsios brought Mr. Fred Cuny from

INTERTEC, a contractor specializing in disaster relief, into the task force.

Thus, USAID and its contractors were integrated into the operation based

on these personal relationships.

Successful interagency cooperation rests in no small part on the ability of

the Ambassador, the geographic combatant commander, the Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretaries of the US Government

departments and agencies to personally work together.

SOURCE: Multiple Sources

d. Establishing Unifying Goals. Reaching consensus on unifying goals is an important

prerequisite for success. Consensus must be constantly nurtured, which is much more difficult

if the goals are not clear or change over time. At the national level, this consensus is usually

attained by the NSC staff and usually results in an NSC committee meeting Statement of

Conclusions, a nation security Presidential directive (NSPD), or a political-military (POLMIL) plan

establishing the goals of an operation and establishing interagency responsibilities. The objective is to

ensure all USG agencies clearly understand NSC policy objectives and subsequent responsibilities.

Some compromise that limits the freedom of individual agencies may be required to gain

consensus. The greater the number of agencies and the more diverse the goals, the more difficult it is

to reach consensus. A crisis — such as the acts of terrorism of September 11, 2001 — increases the

likelihood that compromises will be made and a consensus can be reached. Because a common

unifying goal is so important, a great deal of time is spent on clarifying and restating the goals.

Because a common threat brings a coalition together, the differences often revolve around ways and

means. Many techniques that have been developed in previous coalition operations may be useful in

facilitating interagency, IGO, and NGO cooperation.

e. Mutual Needs and Interdependence. After developing an understanding of other agencies,

determine the mutual needs of all participating agencies. All organizations will strive to maintain

their interests, policies, and core values. These must be considered to facilitate interagency cooperation.

Functional interdependence means that one organization relies upon another to attain the

objective. This interdependence is a strong and potentially lasting bond between agencies,

departments, and organizations. IGOs and NGOs effectively conducted relief operations in Somalia

and the early evolutions in the Balkans in the 1990s with the security provided by the Armed Forces of

the United States. The Armed Forces of the United States cannot conduct a long-range deployment

without DOS securing overflight and en route basing agreements. Resource interdependence is based

on one organization providing certain capabilities that another organization lacks. This support includes

such resources as manpower, logistics, training augmentation, communication, and money and establishes
I-10

Chapter I

JP 3-08

a framework for cooperation. These interdependencies can develop over time and lead the way to true

interagency cooperation. Ensuring that all organizations share the responsibility for the job and

receive appropriate recognition strengthens these bonds of interdependence. The purpose of

such recognition is to wed all of the engaged agencies to the process by validating and reinforcing their

positive participation. Appendixes in Vol II of this publication describe the authority, responsibilities,

organization, capabilities and core competencies, and pertinent contact information for many of these

agencies, departments, and organizations.

f. Consider Long-Term and Short-Term Objectives. Long- and short-term objectives

should be considered separately. At the strategic level of war, the combatant commander may

work with policy coordinating committees through the SecDef (in coordination with the Chairman

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff [CJCS]) who participates in NSC and ministerial-level discussions,

setting long-term policy goals. The combatant commander will also confront short-term

operational objectives and coordinate with ambassadors, their country teams, multinational and

interagency staffs, and task forces.

BUILDING AN UNDERSTANDING IS NECESSARY

“Not only do UN, international organizations, and nongovernmental and

private voluntary organizations not understand the military organization,

we likewise do not understand them. They often have exaggerated

impressions as to our capabilities, and little or no understanding of our

limitations and restrictions. On the other hand, the US military personnel

did not realize that those organizations do not have a real chain of command

as we are used to — we simply never had any idea who to listen to . . . and

they lacked one voice that could speak for all subordinates.”

SOURCE: Operation SUPPORT HOPE After Action Review,

Headquarters, United States European Command

8. Building Coordination

Harnessing the power of disparate organizations with competing priorities and procedures is a

daunting task. The following basic steps support an orderly and systematic approach to building and

maintaining coordination:

a. Forge a Collective Definition of the Problem in Clear and Unambiguous Terms.

Differences in individual assumptions and organizational perspectives can often cloud a clear understanding

of the problem. Appropriate representatives from relevant agencies, departments, and organizations,

to include field offices, should be involved in planning from the outset. This may include the deployment

of an interagency assessment team.

b. Understand the Objectives, End State, and Transition Criteria for Each Involved

Organization or Agency. Commanders and decision makers should seek a clearly defined end

state supported by attainable objectives and transition criteria. Not all agencies and organizations
I-11

Introduction to Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and

Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

will necessarily understand or agree to clearly define the objective with the same sense of urgency or

specificity of military planners.

c. Understand the Differences Between US National Objectives, End State and

Transition Criteria and Those of IGOs and NGOs. Although appropriate IGOs and NGOs

may participate at some level in defining the problem, ultimately their goals and objectives are

independent of our own.

d. Establish a Common Frame of Reference. Differences in terminology and — in the

case of foreign organizations — the use of English as a second language complicate coordination.

The meaning of the terms “safe zone” or “neutral” to a JFC may have completely different

connotations to another agency representative. The operational impact of this potential for

misunderstanding is grave. The semantic differences commonly experienced among the Services

grows markedly in the interagency, IGO, and NGO arenas. To mitigate this problem, commanders

and their staffs must anticipate confusion and take measures to clarify and establish common

terms with clear and specific usage. A good start is to provide common access to JP 1-02,

Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. This clarification is

particularly important for the establishment of military objectives.

e. Develop Courses of Action (COAs) or Options. These should address the problem

and achieve the objectives. Commanders and their staffs should focus on the military

enabling capabilities that contribute to national security policy objective attainment and

are part of the interagency plan of action. Resource-sensitive problems require flexible and

viable options to lead to good solutions. Providing too few or clearly impractical options or

recommending the “middle of the road” approach merely for the sake of achieving consensus is

of little service to decision makers. Open debate within the interagency, IGO, and NGO

community facilitates the formulation of viable options. Cooperation and synchronization are

achieved when interagency coordination allows consideration of all positions. The military

planner or commander’s voice will be but one among many at the interagency, IGO, and NGO

table.

f. Capitalize on Experience. Review the after-action reports and lessons learned using the joint

and Services lessons learned systems, and the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and

Stabilization (S/CRS) Essential Task Matrix, and the US Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations

Institute to assess proposed COAs. Although usually less formal, agencies outside Department of

Defense frequently have their own systems in place, which should be reviewed whenever possible to

capitalize on operational experience.

g. Establish Responsibility. A common sense of ownership and commitment toward

resolution is achievable when all participants understand what needs to be done and agree

upon the means to accomplish it. The resources required for a mission must be painstakingly

identified, with specific and agreed upon responsibility assigned to the agencies that will provide

them. To receive proper reimbursement from other USG agencies or IGOs for materiel support,

careful responsibility and accounting procedures should be established.
I-12

Chapter I

JP 3-08

See JP 1-06, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Financial Management During Joint

Operations.

h. Plan for the Transition of Key Responsibilities, Capabilities, and Functions. In most

multiagency operations, civilian organizations will remain engaged long after the military has accomplished

its assigned tasks and departed the operational area. Therefore, prior to employing military forces, it is

imperative to plan for the transition of responsibility for specific actions or tasks from military

to nonmilitary entities. This process must begin at the national level. When interagency, IGO, and

NGO transition planning does not occur, military involvement may be needlessly protracted. As campaign

and operation plans and orders are developed, effective transition planning should also be a

primary consideration. Commanders and their staffs should anticipate the impact of transition on the

local populace and other organizations.

THE NEED FOR TRANSITION PLANNING

In Rwanda, after the 1994 genocide, the provision of potable water was

critical to saving thousands of lives. While the Armed Forces of the United

States perhaps have the greatest capacity to purify water, this service could

not be provided indefinitely. Effective interagency coordination enabled

the identification of other sources of reverse osmosis water purification

units, associated equipment, support funding, and mutually agreed-upon

timelines and procedures for transitioning from military support to IGO and

NGO control. Also in 1994, in Haiti the well-conceived transition planning,

performed as part of overall interagency coordination, provided for superb

transition execution and management. This transition enabled the Armed

Forces of the United States to hand over responsibility for key tasks to

other agencies, departments, and organizations in a virtually seamless

manner.

Various Sources

i. Direct All Means Toward Unity of Effort. Unity of effort in an operation ensures all means

are directed to a common purpose. Because DOD will often be in a supporting role in this process, it

may not be responsible for determining the mission or specifying the participating agencies. Appropriate

organization, C2, and most importantly an understanding of the objectives of the organizations involved

are all means to build consensus and achieve unity of effort, regardless of role. The reciprocal exchange

of information is also a critical enabler in ensuring unity of effort.

9. Media Impact on Coordination

The media can be a powerful force in shaping public attitudes and policy development.

The media often has a dramatic influence on the interagency, IGO, and NGO process — whether

at the strategic decision-making level of the NSC or in the field as IGOs and NGOs vie for

public attention and necessary charitable contributions. Commanders and their staffs should

consider the impact that public affairs (PA) and media relations have on the operation and

in the interagency process. The White House Office of Global Communications is the lead
I-13

Introduction to Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and

Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

agency for developing the national communication strategy. The State Department’s Bureau

of International Information Programs is the strategic international communications service

for the US foreign affairs community. Commanders and their staffs should plan for PA activities to

function in coordination with national-level communication initiatives. All participating agencies and

organizations need to establish and agree early in the planning process on procedures for media access,

issuing and verifying credentials, and briefing, escorting, and transporting of media members and their

equipment. Planners must include the development of PA guidance as part of the interagency, IGO, and

NGO coordination before executing the plan. This guidance provides a common reference for all

military and other governmental organizations. Responsibility for interaction with the media should be

established clearly so that, to the extent possible, the media hears a constant theme. Commanders

should identify appropriate spokespersons, and plans should include when, how, and from which locations

they will address media.
I-14

Chapter I

JP 3-08

Intentionally Blank
CHAPTER II

ESTABLISHED INTERAGENCY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION,

AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION RELATIONSHIPS

II-1

“What’s the relationship between a just-arrived military force and the NGOs and

PVOs [private volunteer organizations] that might have been working in a crisistorn area all along? What we have is a partnership. If you are successful, they

are successful; and, if they are successful, you are successful. We need each

other.”

General John M. Shalikashvili

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

1. Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and Nongovernmental

Organization Connectivity

Responding to the challenges facing the nation almost inevitably requires a multiagency,

interdisciplinary approach that brings to bear the many diverse skills and resources of the Federal

government and other public and private organizations. The requirement for coordination between

these agencies and organizations is not new. The continually changing global security environment

requires increased and improved communications and coordination among the numerous agencies

and organizations working to achieve established national security objectives. This cooperation

is best achieved through active interagency involvement, building on the core competencies and

successful experiences of each. What follows is a discussion of the foundation and beginnings

of the interagency process within the Federal government, flowing downward and outward to

the state and local governments, and combatant commands. The discussion then addresses

coordination with national and international IGOs and NGOs. While portions of this chapter are

described in other JPs, this material is brought together here to provide a common frame of

reference that reflects all levels of interagency involvement.

2. Historical Basis of the Interagency Process

a. DOD participation in the interagency process is grounded within the Constitution

and established by law in the National Security Act of 1947 (NSA 47). The NSC is a product

of NSA 47. NSA 47 codified and refined the interagency process used during World War II,

modeled in part on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1919 proposal for a “Joint Plan-Making Body” to

deal with the overlapping authorities of the Departments of State, War, and Navy.

b. Due to the diverse interests of individual agencies, previous attempts at interagency

coordination failed for lack of national-level perspectives, a staff for continuity, and adequate

appreciation of the need for an institutionalized coordination process. Evolving from the World

War II experience (during which the Secretary of State was not invited to War Council meetings),

the first State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee was formed in 1945.

c. From the earliest days of this nation, the President has had the primary responsibility for

national security stemming from his constitutional powers both as Commander-in-Chief of the
II-2

Chapter II

JP 3-08

Armed Forces and his authority to make treaties and appoint cabinet members and ambassadors.

The intent of NSA 47 was to assist the President with respect to the integration of domestic,

foreign, and military policies relating to national security. Most current USG interagency

actions flow from these beginnings.

d. Within the constitutional and statutory system, interagency actions at the national level

may be based on both personality and process, consisting of persuasion, negotiation, and consensus

building, as well as adherence to bureaucratic procedure.

3. The National Security Council System

a. The functions, membership, and responsibilities of the NSC and its advisory bodies set

forth in NSA 47 (as amended) were updated most recently on February 13, 2001 in NSPD-1,

Subject: Organization of the National Security Council System. These documents establish

the National Security Council as the principal forum to advise the President with respect to

the integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to national security and the

National Security Council System (NSCS) as the process to coordinate executive departments

and agencies in the effective development and implementation of those national security policies.

b. NSC Functions. The NSC advises and assists the President in integrating all aspects of

national security policy — domestic, foreign, military, intelligence, and economic (in conjunction

with the National Economic Council). Together with supporting interagency working groups

(some permanent and others ad hoc), high-level steering groups, executive committees, and task

forces, the NSCS provides the foundation for interagency coordination in the development

and implementation of national security policy. The NSC is the President’s principal

forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters with the administration’s

senior national security advisors and cabinet officials. The Council also serves as the

President’s principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government

agencies.

c. NSC Membership. The President chairs the NSC. As prescribed in NSPD-1, the

NSC shall have as its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) the President, the Vice

President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the SecDef, the Secretary of

Homeland Security, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Director

of Central Intelligence and the CJCS, as statutory advisors to the NSC, shall also attend NSC

meetings. The Chief of Staff to the President and the Assistant to the President for Economic

Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Counsel to the President shall be consulted

regarding the agenda of NSC meetings, and shall attend any meeting when, in consultation with

the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, he deems it appropriate. The Attorney

General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall be invited to attend

meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. For the Attorney General, this includes matters

both within the jurisdiction of the Justice Department and concerning questions of law. The

heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, shall be

invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.
II-3

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

d. NSC Organization. The members of the NSC constitute the President’s personal

and principal staff for national security issues. The council tracks and directs the development,

execution, and implementation of national security policies for the President but does not normally

implement policy. Rather, it takes a central coordinating or monitoring role in the development

of policy and options depending on the desires of the President and the National Security Advisor.

NSPD-1 establishes three levels of formal interagency committees for coordinating and making

decisions on national security issues. Participation among USG agencies in the NSCS and these

advisory bodies is depicted in Figure II-1. The advisory bodies include:

(1) The NSC Principals Committee (NSC/PC) is the senior Cabinet-level

interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national security. The Principals

Committee meets at the call of and is chaired by the National Security Advisor.

(2) The NSC/Deputies Committee (NSC/DC) is the senior sub-Cabinet-level

(deputy secretary-level) interagency forum for consideration of policy issues affecting national

security. The NSC/DC prescribes and reviews the work of the NSC Policy Coordination

Committees (NSC/PCCs). The NSC/DC ensures that NSC/PC issues have been properly analyzed

and prepared for discussion. The Deputies Committee meets at the call of and is chaired by the

Deputy National Security Advisor.

(3) NSC/PCCs are the main day-to-day fora for interagency coordination of

national security policy. NSC/PCCs manage the development and implementation of national

security policies by multiple agencies of the USG, provide policy analysis for consideration by

the more senior committees of the NSCS, and ensure timely responses to decisions made by the

President. The oversight of ongoing operations assigned by the Deputies Committee is performed

by the appropriate NSC/PCCs, which may create subordinate working groups. Each NSC/PCC

is chaired by an official of Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary rank. Each NSC/PCC includes

representatives from the executive departments, and offices and agencies represented in the

NSC/DC. Additional NSC/PCCs may be established as appropriate by the President or the

National Security Advisor.

(a) Six Regional NSC/PCCs are established: Europe and Eurasia, Western

Hemisphere, East Asia, South Asia, Near East and North Africa, and Africa.

(b) Functional NSC/PCCs are established for specific purposes as issues or

crises arise and to develop long-term strategies. Currently there are 11 functional NSC/PCCs

(see Figure II-1). Of particular significance in CCOs is the NSC/PCC for Contingency Planning,

which manages the interagency process for preparation and review of POLMIL plans. Functional

NSC/PCCs have an Executive Secretary from the staff of the NSC. The functional NSC/PCC

may invite representatives of other executive departments and agencies (see Figure II-1).

(c) During a rapidly developing crisis, the President may request the National

Security Advisor to convene the NSC. The NSC reviews the situation, determines a preliminary

COA, and tasks the Principals and Deputies Committees.
II-4

Chapter II

JP 3-08

Figure II-1. National Security Council Organization

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL ORGANIZATION

Office of the

Secretary of

Defense

J f oint Staff Department o

State

Other Executive

Branch

NATIONAL

SECURITY

COUNCIL

Secretary of

Defense

Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of

Staff

S , ecretary of State President, Vice President

Secretary of the Treasury,

Assistant to the President

for National Security

Affairs, Director of Central

Intelligence, Chief of Staff

to the President, Assistant

to the President for

Economic Policy, Attorney

General, Director OMB,

Counsel to the President

PRINCIPALS

COMMITTEE

Secretary of

Defense

Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of

Staff

S , ecretary of State Secretary of the Treasury

Director of Central

Intelligence, Chief of Staff

to the President, Attorney

General, Director OMB,

Counsel to the President,

Chief of Staff to the Vice

President, Assistant to the

President and Deputy

National Security Advisor,

et al.

DEPUTIES

COMMITTEE

Deputy Secretary

of Defense or

Undersecretary

for Policy

Vice Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs

of Staff

Deputy Secretary

of State

Assistant to the President

for National Security

Affairs and other deputies

of Principals

POLICY COORDINATION COMMITTEES (PCCs)

PCCs -

Regional

Europe and Eurasia

East Asia

Near East and North Africa

Western Hemisphere

South Asia

Africa

PCCs -

Functional

Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations

International Development and Humanitarian Assistance

Global Environment

International Finance

Transnational Economic Issues

Counterterrorism and National Preparedness

Defense Strategy, Force Structure, and Planning

Arms Control

Proliferation, Counterproliferation, and Homeland Defense

Intelligence and Counterintelligance

Records Access and Information Security
II-5

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

(d) Under more routine conditions, concerns focus on broader aspects of

national policy and long-term strategy perspectives. NSPDs outline specific national interests,

overall national policy objectives, and tasks for the appropriate components of the executive

branch.

e. DOD Role in the NSCS

(1) Key DOD players in the NSCS come from within the Office of the Secretary

of Defense and the Joint Staff. The SecDef is a regular member of the NSC and the NSC/PC.

The Deputy Secretary of Defense is a member of the NSC/DC. In addition to membership, an

Under Secretary of Defense may chair a NSC/PCC.

(2) The NSCS is the channel for the CJCS to discharge substantial statutory

responsibilities as the principal military advisor to the President, the SecDef, and the NSC.

The CJCS regularly attends NSC meetings and provides advice and views in this capacity. The

other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may submit advice or an opinion in disagreement

with that of the CJCS or advice or an opinion in addition to the advice provided by the CJCS.

(3) The Military Departments which implement but do not participate directly in

national security policy-making activities of the interagency process are represented by the

CJCS.

f. The Joint Staff Role in the NSCS

(1) The Joint Staff provides operational input and staff support through the CJCS

(or designee) for policy decisions made by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It

coordinates with the combatant commands, Services, and other agencies and prepares appropriate

directives, such as warning, alert, and execute orders, for SecDef approval. This preparation

includes definition of command and interagency relationships.

(2) When combatant commands require interagency coordination, the Joint Staff, in

concert with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, routinely accomplishes that coordination.

(3) Within the Joint Staff, the offices of the CJCS, Secretary of the Joint Staff,

and the Operations (J-3), Logistics (J-4), Plans and Policy (J-5), and Operational Plans

and Joint Force Development Directorates are focal points for NSC-related actions. The

J-3 provides advice on execution of military operations, the J-4 assesses logistic implications of

contemplated operations, and the J-5 often serves to focus DOD on a particular NSC matter for

policy and planning purposes. Each of the Joint Staff directorates coordinates with the Military

Departments to solicit Service input in the planning process. The SecDef may also designate

one of the Services as the executive agent for direction and coordination of DOD activities in

support of specific mission areas.

g. The Combatant Commanders’ Role in the NSCS. Although combatant commanders

sometimes participate directly in the interagency process by directly communicating with
II-6

Chapter II

JP 3-08

committees and groups of the NSC system and by working to integrate the military with

diplomatic, economic, and informational instruments of national power, the normal conduit for

information between the President, SecDef, NSC, and a combatant command is the CJCS.

Combatant commanders may communicate with the Deputies Committee during development

of the POLMIL plan with the Joint Staff in a coordinating role.

4. Federal Interagency Coordination: Homeland Defense and Civil Support

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the DHS whose mission is to lead the

unified national effort to secure America by preventing and deterring terrorist attacks and

protecting against and responding to threats and hazards to the nation. As such, DHS is the LFA

for homeland security (HS). Within DOD, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland

Defense) (ASD(HD)) was established within the office of the Under Secretary for Policy to

provide overall direction and supervision for policy, program planning and execution, and

allocation of DOD resources for homeland defense (HD) and CS. Responsibilities include:

strategic planning; employment policy, guidance and oversight; support to civil authorities in

accordance with the FRP; assistance to civilian agencies conducting HS missions; and serving

as the principal staff assistant delegated the authority to manage and coordinate HS and CS

functions at the SecDef level. The establishment of ASD(HD) was followed closely by a

change in the Unified Command Plan that created the United States Northern Command

(USNORTHCOM). USNORTHCOM’s missions include conducting operations to deter,

prevent, and defeat threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its territories, and interest

within the assigned area of responsibility (AOR); and, as directed by the President or SecDef,

provide military assistance to civil authorities including consequence management (CM)

operations.

For further guidance on CS and HD, see JP 3-26, Joint Doctrine for Homeland Security.

a. While the NSC serves as the principal forum for considering national security policy

issues requiring Presidential determination, the Homeland Security Council (HSC) provides

a parallel forum for considering unique homeland security matters, especially those

concerning terrorism within the United States. The HSC ensures coordination of all HS-related

activities among executive departments and agencies and promotes the effective development

and implementation of all homeland security policies.

(1) The Homeland Security Council Principals Committee (HSC/PC) membership

includes the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, the SecDef, the

Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Transportation,

the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of Central Intelligence, the

Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Director of the Federal Emergency

Management Agency, the Chief of Staff to the President, and the Chief of Staff to the Vice

President. The National Security Advisor is invited to attend all meetings of the HSC/PC. The

following are invited to HSC/PC meetings when issues pertaining to their responsibilities and

expertise are discussed: the Secretary of State; the Secretary of the Interior; the Secretary of

Agriculture; the Secretary of Commerce; the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of Energy; the
II-7

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

Secretary of Veterans Affairs; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and

the Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism.

(2) Homeland Security Council Policy Coordination Committees. HSC Policy

Coordination Committees (HSC/PCCs) manage the development and implementation of HS

policies by multiple departments and agencies throughout the Federal government, and coordinate

those policies with State and local government. The HSC/PCCs are the main day-to-day fora

for interagency coordination of HS policy. There are eleven HSC/PCCs:

(a) Detection, Surveillance, and Intelligence.

(b) Plans, Training, Exercises, and Evaluation.

(c) Law Enforcement and Investigation.

(d) Weapons of Mass Destruction Consequence Management.

(e) Key Asset, Border, Territorial Waters, and Airspace Security.

(f) Domestic Transportation Security.

(g) Research and Development.

(h) Medical and Public Health Preparedness.

(i) Domestic Threat Response and Incident Management.

(j) Economic Consequence.

(k) Public Affairs.

b. Homeland Defense. Under the DOD HD mission area, military capabilities are used to

counter threats and aggression against the United States. Normally, DOD is the lead, supported

by other agencies, in defending against traditional threats/aggression. When ordered to conduct

HD operations, DOD will often have to maintain close coordination of operations with other

federal agencies or departments.

c. Civil Support. The Armed Forces of the United States are authorized under certain

conditions to provide assistance to US civil authorities. This assistance is known as CS within

the defense community because the assistance will always be in support of an LFA. Requests

for assistance from another agency may be predicated on mutual agreements between agencies

or stem from a Presidential designation of a federal disaster area or a federal state of emergency.

The military typically only responds after the resources of other federal agencies, state and local

governments, and NGOs have been exhausted or when specialized military assets are required.
II-8

Chapter II

JP 3-08

d. DOD works closely with other Federal agencies, in particular DHS and its subordinate

organizations, in various domestic arenas. In addition to participating in interagency steering

groups and councils, DOD is a partner in several national-level incident management and

emergency response plans such as the FRP, the National Contingency Plan, the Federal

Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP), the United States Government Interagency

Domestic Terrorism Concept of Operations Plan (CONPLAN), Mass Immigration Emergency

Plan, and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Over

time, these plans will be consolidated into a NRP.

(1) The Federal Response Plan, January 2003, invokes the Robert T. Stafford Disaster

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which provides the authority for the Federal government

to respond to emergencies and major disasters. The Act gives the President the authority to

establish a program for disaster preparedness and response support, which is delegated to DHS.

(2) In accordance with HSPD-5, a NRP is under development by the Secretary DHS

that will integrate USG domestic prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery plans into

one all-discipline, all-hazards plan. HSPD-5 directed the Secretary of Homeland Security to

develop and administer a NIMS. Under NIMS, federal, state, and local governments prepare

for, respond to, and recover from domestic incidents, irrespective of incident cause, size, or

complexity. NIMS incorporates the Incident Command System (ICS) as the standard incident

management organization with five functional areas — command, operations, planning, logistics,

and finance/administration — for management of all major incidents. NIMS is not an operational

management or resource allocation plan.

See DHS Pamphlet titled “National Incident Management System” dated 1 March 2004 at

www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NIMS-90-web.pdf for more information on NIMS and ICS.

(3) The FRERP, May 1, 1996, established an organized and integrated capability

for timely, coordinated response by Federal agencies to peacetime radiological emergencies.

The LFA is responsible for coordinating all aspects of the Federal response. DOD is the LFA for

emergencies at DOD-owned or operated facilities, involving DOD material in transit, or involving

DOD spacecraft missions. Additionally, DOD provides radiological resources to include trained

response personnel, specialized radiation instruments, mobile instrument calibration, repair

capabilities, expertise in site restoration and performs special sampling of airborne contamination

on request.

(4) Under the United States Government Interagency Domestic Terrorism

CONPLAN, January 2001, DOD provides military assistance to the LFA and/or the CONPLAN

primary agencies during all aspects of a terrorist incident when requested by the appropriate

authority and approved by the SecDef.

(5) Operation Distant Shore, Mass Immigration Emergency Plan, June 1994,

presents guidelines for coordinated actions by the Federal government, at the national, regional,

and local level, to enforce Federal laws to deter, interdict, and control massive illegal immigration
II-9

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

to the United States. DOD will provide facilities, logistics, medical support, transportation and

personnel support to agencies involved in the implementation of the plan.

(6) The NCP, September 15, 1994 provides the organizational structure and procedures

for preparing for and responding to discharges of oil and releases of hazardous substances,

pollutants, and contaminants. In the case of a release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or

contaminant, where the release is on, or the sole source of the release is from, any facility or

vessel under the jurisdiction, custody, or control of DOD, then DOD will be the lead agency.

e. Military forces may also conduct missions to help DOJ or other Federal law

enforcement agencies (LEAs) assist Federal, state, or local LEAs. This includes military

assistance in response to civil disturbances. Other types of operations include counterdrug,

combating terrorism, general support such as training civilian law enforcement officials, and

infrastructure protection. However, the Constitution of the United States, laws, regulations,

policies, and other legal issues all affect the employment of the military in domestic operations.

For this reason, requests should be coordinated with the supporting organization’s legal counsel

or staff judge advocate (SJA). Examples of laws that may impact this type of support include:

(1) The Posse Comitatus Act and Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 5525.5,

DOD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Authorities, provide the authority and define

the conditions under which military forces can be employed, as well as criminal penalties and

the legal constraints intended to prevent misuse of military force. With the exception of members

of the US Coast Guard (USCG) and members of the National Guard in state service, military

personnel are normally prohibited under either the Posse Comitatus Act or DOD policy

from direct participation in the execution of civil laws in the United States. Under the

provisions of this act and DOD policy, military personnel are prohibited from:

(a) Participating in the arrest, search and seizure, and stopping and frisking of

personnel, or domestic interdiction of vessels, aircraft, or vehicles.

(b) Conducting domestic surveillance or pursuit.

(c) Operating as informants, undercover agents, or investigators in civilian legal

cases or in any other civilian law enforcement activity.

(2) Preplanned national events may be perceived by adversaries as terrorist targets. In

accordance with HSPD-7, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the HSC,

has the authority to designate important public events, such as the Olympic games or the President’s

Inauguration, as national security special events. Once so designated, an event becomes the

focal point for interagency planning and the LFA may request support from DOD.

(3) DOD capabilities may also be requested in support of civil law enforcement. DOD’s

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities, as well as other advanced capabilities

like chemical detection, may likely result in increased requests for DOD assistance in the future,
II-10

Chapter II

JP 3-08

particularly to fight terrorism. (See DODD 5525.5, DOD Cooperation with Civilian Law

Enforcement Officials.)

f. In most situations, the Commander, United States Northern Command

(CDRUSNORTHCOM) or the Commander, United States Pacific Command (CDRUSPACOM)

will be designated as the supported combatant commander.

(1) The supported combatant commanders are DOD principal planning agents

and have the responsibility to provide joint planning and execution directives for peacetime

assistance rendered by DOD within their assigned AORs.

(2) Once a decision to employ military assets is made, the supported combatant

commander uses the capabilities of each component to accomplish the mission. The organization

of the joint force will be based on the capabilities required for the optimum response. Frequently,

the response will require nontraditional or innovative uses of military resources.

(3) During disaster operations, the supported combatant commander normally

designates a defense coordinating officer (DCO) upon receipt of a request for assistance from

the LFA sent through the Executive Secretary (EXECSEC) of the Office of the Secretary of

Defense. The DCO works with the federal coordinating officer (FCO) or principal federal

official (PFO) to integrate DOD efforts in support of the operation and serves as the on-scene

military point of contact (POC) for the FCO or PFO and principal representatives of other USG

agencies and NGOs.

(4) DHS provides supporting combatant commanders with interface to Federal agencies

through regional interagency steering committees for planning, coordinating, and supporting

relief efforts. Figure II-2 depicts the ICS, a standard model for managing domestic events,

and widely used by the civilian sector and DHS to establish roles and responsibilities when

working within the interagency community. The USCG has adopted ICS as its standard

response system for nonmilitary incident management. US military forces that might be involved

in emergency or major disaster operations may benefit by becoming familiar with the ICS system.

Joint Task Force Los Angeles (JTF-LA) was formed following a Presidential

Executive Order on the evening of 1 May 1992. The Executive Order

federalized units of the California National Guard (CANG) and authorized

active military forces to assist in the restoration of law and order. JTF-LA

formed and deployed within twenty-four hours, assembled from US Army

and Marine Forces. It operated in a domestic disturbance environment,

while working with city, county, state, federal agencies, and the CANG.

VARIOUS SOURCES

g. In addition to emergency or disaster assistance, DOD assistance may be requested

from other agencies as part of HS. Such assistance may be in the form of information and

intelligence sharing, mapping, or damage assessment assistance.
II-11

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

h. While DOD response to domestic emergencies is normally coordinated through the

SecDef, the military may also respond when an interdepartmental memorandum of

agreement (MOA) is in effect. For example, the USCG, under an interdepartmental MOA, is

assured of a rapid deployment of oil containment and recovery equipment from the US Navy.

The MOA bypasses negotiations at the HQ level and sets forth procedures for deployment and

employment of equipment and personnel and for reimbursement of operational costs.

i. Because of America’s unrivaled military superiority, adversaries of the United States

may be more likely to resort to terror and the use of WMD instead of conventional military

methods. Supporting incidents involving WMD may take many forms, to include operations

associated with crisis management (CrM) and CM.

(1) CrM support occurs under the primary jurisdiction of the Federal government

with the DOJ, exercised through the FBI, as the LFA assuming primary responsibility in a

domestic terrorist threat or incident. DOD support to LFA crisis management involving the

Figure II-2. Incident Command System/Unified Command

INCIDENT COMMAND SYSTEM/

UNIFIED COMMAND

Compensation /

Claims Unit

Time Unit

Procurement

Unit

Personnel

Staging

Supply

Food

NOTE: Operational

control of assets at the

scene is retained by the

designated officials

representing the agency

(local, State, or Federal)

providing the assets.

Situation

Unit

Technical

Specialists

Investigations

Unit

Resource Unit

Documentation

Unit

Demobilization

Unit

Air

Mission

Group

Aviation

Support

Group

Security Group

Evacuation Group

Traffic Control

Group

Tactical Group

Civil Disorder

Group

Medical Response

Group

Crisis Negotiation

Team

Fire

Rescue

Hazardous

Material

AIR

OPERATIONS

BRANCH

MEDICAL

SERVICES

BRANCH

LAW

ENFORCEMENT

BRANCH

FIRE

SERVICE

BRANCH

OPERATIONS

SECTION

LOGISTICS

SECTION

PLANNING/

INTEL

SECTION

FINANCE/

ADMINISTRATION

SECTION

Safety Officer

Command Post

Scribe

UNIFIED COMMAND (POLICE, FIRE,

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES)

Press Information

Officer

Liaison Officer Agency

Representatives
II-12

Chapter II

JP 3-08

employment of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosives (CBRNE)

devices includes measures to identify, acquire, and employ resources to anticipate, prevent, or

resolve a threat or act of terrorism. When a terrorist incident develops having a potential for

military involvement, the DOD executive agent may dispatch military observers to the incident

site, on mutual agreement between DOD and the FBI, to appraise the situation before any decision

is made to commit military forces. The SecDef through the CJCS shall specifically authorize

any dispatch of US counterterrorism forces as observers. (See DODD 3025.12, Military Support

for Civil Disturbance.)

(2) CM involves actions that comprise those essential services and activities required

to manage and mitigate problems resulting from disasters and catastrophes, including natural,

manmade, or terrorist incidents. Such services may include transportation, communications,

public works and engineering, firefighting, urban search and rescue, hazardous materials, food,

and energy. Support occurs under the primary jurisdiction of the affected state and local

government with the Federal government providing assistance when required. DOD support to

CM involving the employment of CBRNE devices comprises USG interagency assistance to

protect public health and safety, restore essential government services, and provide emergency

relief to governments, businesses, and individuals affected by the consequences of a CBRNE

accident or incident.

j. The US military has acquired experience and developed expertise in protecting its members

from CBRNE devices and in operating in a contaminated environment. With the threat now

reaching into the domestic arena, this experience and expertise is available to domestic civil

authorities.

k. Military commanders should scrutinize, with the assistance of legal counsel when

appropriate, each request for domestic aid to ensure that it conforms with statutory

limitations, especially in law enforcement assistance to civil authorities. The SecDef must

personally approve any request to assist LEAs in preplanned national events. Increased demand

for DOD assets in support of law enforcement will require careful review during the planning

phase to ensure that DOD support conforms to legal guidelines and does not degrade the mission

capability of combatant commanders.

5. Department of Defense Coordination of Civil Support with State and Local

Authorities

a. When a disaster threatens or occurs, and the assets of local and state governments are

fully committed, a governor may request federal assistance. DOD may support local and state

authorities in a variety of tasks.

b. Army and Air National Guard forces have primary responsibility for providing military

assistance in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia in

civil emergencies, and are under the command of the state or territory adjutant general. Reserve

personnel may be employed for civil emergencies in a volunteer status, be ordered to active duty

for annual training, or be called to active duty. DOD support is generally provided in the
II-13

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

form of assistance or augmentation of skills and resources to the Federal agency field

office or to a state or local agency having responsibility for a particular activity.

c. The Domestic Preparedness Program was established in 1997 and provided funding

for DOD to train state and local first responders in 120 US cities in CBRNE training,

access to federal assistance, and exercises.

d. Each US state, territory, and possession has an office of emergency services (OES)

or an equivalent office responsible for preparedness planning and assisting the governor in

directing responses to emergencies. The OES coordinates provision of state or territorial assistance

to its local governments through authority of the governor or adjutant general. The OES operates

the state emergency operations center during a disaster or emergency and coordinates with

Federal officials for support, if required. The state will usually designate a state coordinating

officer (SCO), with similar authorities to the FCO or PFO, to coordinate and integrate Federal

and state activities. States may also assist other states through the use of interstate compacts.

e. DOD counterpart relationships to those of DCO, FCO or PFO, and SCO are established

at lower echelons to facilitate coordination. Installation commanders may respond

immediately to a request from local or state governments to an emergency which may not

be at the level to be a Presidentially declared emergency. Installation commanders may

respond to support for public fire, search and rescue services, public works, police protection,

social services, public health, and hospitals. DOD support for local environmental operations

can begin immediately within the authority delegated to installation commanders. This

immediate response by commanders will not take precedence over their primary mission.

Commanders should seek guidance through the chain of command regarding continuing assistance

whenever DOD resources are committed under immediate response circumstances. When

providing assistance in response to a Presidentially-declared disaster or emergency, emergency

preparedness liaison officers (EPLOs) represent the DOD executive agent, the supported

commander, and their own Service.

6. Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and Nongovernmental

Organization Coordination: Foreign Operations

a. The Political-Military Domain. Within the Executive Branch, DOS is the lead foreign

affairs agency, assisting the President in foreign policy formulation and execution. As such,

DOS oversees the coordination of DOD external POLMIL relationships with overall US foreign

policy. External POLMIL relationships of DOD include:

(1) Bilateral military relationships.

(2) Coalition military forces.

(3) Multilateral mutual defense alliances.
II-14

Chapter II

JP 3-08

(4) Treaties and agreements involving DOD activities or interests, such as technology

transfer, armaments cooperation and control, international aviation, law of the sea, nuclear

regulation, and environmental pollution.

(5) Use of US military assets for humanitarian or peace operations (including those

conducted under UN auspices).

b. Theater Focus. The geographic combatant commander implements DOD external

POLMIL relationships within the AOR. The combatant commander’s regional focus is similar

to the regional focus of DOS’s geographic bureaus, though the geographic boundaries differ.

Most other USG foreign affairs agencies are regionally organized as well, again with varying

geographic boundaries. Within a theater, the geographic combatant commander is the focal

point for planning and implementation of regional and theater military strategies that

require interagency coordination. In contrast, the DOS focal point for formulation and

implementation of regional foreign policy strategies requiring interagency coordination is the

geographic bureau at DOS headquarters in Washington, DC. Although the geographic combatant

commander will often find it more expeditious to approach the US bilateral COMs for approval

of an activity in regional HNs, often the political effect of the proposed US military activity goes

far beyond the boundaries of the HN. In such cases, the combatant commander should not

assume that the approval of the COM corresponds to region-wide approval of DOS, but instead

should ascertain that the COM has received instructions from DOS to give region-wide approval.

c. In a CCO, coordination between DOD and other USG agencies will normally occur

within the NSC/PCC and, if directed, during development of the POLMIL plan. During

lesser operations and operations not involving armed conflict, the combatant commander’s staff

may deal directly with a COM or members of the country team regarding issues that do not

transcend the boundaries of the HN. In some operations, a special envoy of the President or a

special representative of the UN Secretary General may be involved.

d. The joint interagency coordination group (JIACG) is an interagency staff group

that establishes regular, timely, and collaborative working relationships between civilian

and military operational planners. Composed of USG civilian and military experts accredited

to the combatant commander and tailored to meet the requirements of a supported combatant

commander, the JIACG provides the combatant commander with the capability to collaborate at

the operational level with other USG civilian agencies and departments. JIACGs complement

the interagency coordination that takes place at the strategic level through the NSCS. Members

participate in deliberate, crisis, and transition planning, and provide links back to their parent

civilian agencies to help synchronize joint task force (JTF) operations with the efforts of civilian

USG agencies and departments.
II-15

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

“Interaction with the US Department of State and the United Nations was critical

throughout the operation. Ambassador Oakley and I spoke regularly to coordinate

the efforts of the DOS and our military operations in the ARFOR [Army forces]

sector. His support for our operation was superb and he played a key role in

communicating with the leadership of the Somali clans. We followed his lead in

operations, just as we fully supported the operations of the DOS.”

Major General Steven L. Arnold, USA

Operations Other Than War in a Power Projection Army:

Lessons From Operation RESTORE HOPE and Hurricane Andrew Relief

Operations, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 1994

e. Campaign Planning and Interagency Coordination. Campaign planning generally applies

to the conduct of combat operations, but combatant commanders and subordinate JFCs may be required

to develop campaign plans across the range of military operations. A joint campaign plan is based on the

commander’s concept, which presents a broad vision of the required military aim or end state, and how

operations will be conducted to achieve objectives. Thus, a campaign plan is an essential tool for

laying out a clear, definable path linking the mission to the desired end state. Such a plan

enables commanders to help political leaders visualize operational requirements for achieving objectives.

Given the systematic military approach to problem solving and the usual predominance of resources, it

is often the combatant commander who formally or informally functions as the lead organizer of many

operations.

(1) Strategic Guidance. The President and/or SecDef will promulgate strategic

guidance to provide long-term, intermediate, or ancillary objectives. The combatant commander

will determine how to implement guidance at the theater or operational level to achieve

strategic objectives. Theater-level campaign planning is linked to operational art, which provides

a framework to assist commanders in using resources efficiently and effectively, including

interagency assets, when producing campaign plans. Among the many operational considerations,

the combatant commander’s guidance must define the following:

(a) What military or related political and social conditions (objectives) must be

produced in the operational area to achieve the strategic goal? (Ends)

(b) What sequence of actions is most likely to produce that condition? (Ways)

(c) How should resources of the joint force be applied to accomplish that sequence

of actions? (Means)

(d) What is the likely cost or risk to the joint force in performing a particular

sequence of actions? (Considered during COA analysis).

(e) What organizational/command arrangements will be established for the joint

or Service forces tasked to accomplish the mission (unity of command)?
II-16

Chapter II

JP 3-08

(2) To frame a campaign plan involving interagency coordination, the commander

must address this area within the context of all the instruments of national power. The

commander will be guided by the interagency provisions of the POLMIL plan, when provided,

and will disseminate that guidance to the joint force in Annex V, the Interagency Coordination

Annex of the combatant commander’s OPLAN. Developed in December 1999, Appendix V

(Planning Guidance, Annex V - Interagency Coordination) to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff Manual 3122.03A, Joint Operations Planning and Execution System, Volume II, Planning

Formats and Guidance, remains an essential ingredient at the NSC and policy coordinating

committee in producing POLMIL plans. For interagency transition and exit criteria Annex V

lays out to the greatest degree possible what the combatant commander desires as the entry and

exit conditions for the USG civilian agencies during the operation. It notes that interagency

participation could be involved at the earliest phases of the operation or campaign starting with

flexible deterrent options. Linking the interagency actions with the phases of the operation

assists in the scheduling and coordination. Crucially important to the plan is the orderly flow of

operations to the desired end state and an efficient end of direct US military involvement. The

development of Annex C should enhance early operational coordination with planners from the other

USG agencies that will be involved in the operation’s execution or its policy context. During deliberate

interagency planning, heavy combatant command involvement, participation, and coordination will be

critical to success.

f. Plan Development and Coordination. Although deliberate planning is conducted in

anticipation of future events, there may be situations which call for an immediate US military

response, e.g., noncombatant evacuation operation or FHA. Combatant commanders

frequently develop COAs based on recommendations and considerations originating in one or

more US embassies. In this regard, the country team is an invaluable resource because of its

interagency experience and links to Washington. The JIACG can provide additional collaboration

with operational planners and USG agencies. Emergency action plans in force at every embassy

cover a wide range of anticipated contingencies and crises and can assist the commanders in

identifying COAs, options, and constraints to military actions and support activities. The staffs

of geographic combatant commands also consult with the Joint Staff and other key agencies not

represented on the country team or a JIACG to coordinate military operations and support

activities. Initial concepts of military operations may require revision based on feasibility

analysis and consideration of related activities by IGOs or NGOs, particularly regarding

logistics. For example, primitive seaport and airport facilities may limit the ability to move

massive amounts of supplies and constrain operations. Such information is frequently provided

the country team that, in turn, may be in contact with relief organizations in country. Directly or

indirectly, refinement of the military mission should be coordinated with other USG agencies,

IGOs, and NGOs to identify and minimize mutual interference.

(1) Mission planning conducted by the geographic combatant commander should

be coordinated with the DOS, DOJ, and Department of Energy, through the Office of the

Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to facilitate definition and clarification of

strategic aims, end state, and the means to achieve them. Commanders and planners should

consider specific conditions that could produce mission failure, as well as those that mark success.
II-17

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

Commanders must ensure that unity of effort with other agencies contributes to the USG’s overall

strategic aims and objectives.

INTEGRATING INTERAGENCY PLANNING

Our experiences in Kosovo and elsewhere have demonstrated the necessity

to ensure that all concerned government agencies conduct comprehensive

planning to encompass the full range of instruments available to decision

makers. We all must move forward with our efforts to achieve increased

levels of integrated interagency planning now. To better support other

agencies, DOD needs to give greater consideration to political, diplomatic,

humanitarian, economic, information, and other nonmilitary activities in

defense planning. In addition, the US Government must establish dedicated

mechanisms and integrated planning processes to ensure rapid, effective,

well-structured, multi-agency efforts in response to crises. Finally, we must

continue to emphasize that our senior officials routinely participate in

rehearsals, gaming, exercises, and simulations, as well as the CP IWG

[Contingency Planning Interagency Working Group] - which has become a

genuine leap forward in the effort to establish a sound system to incorporate

crisis and deliberate planning across the interagency.

SOURCE: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Posture Statement

before the 106th Congress Committee On Armed Services,

United States Senate, 8 February 2000

(2) During campaign planning, the command should identify the target audiences

to be reached. The JFC’s public affairs officer (PAO) must coordinate with civil affairs,

information operations, embassy public affairs officers, the intelligence community, IGOs, and

NGOs to develop and deconflict communications strategies and tactics in line with the JFC’s

intent. The desired end state, essential tasks leading up to the end state, and exit criteria

must be clearly expressed to the US and international media in order to gain and maintain

public understanding and support. USG agencies and organizations must determine and

coordinate the best methods to communicate their messages to avoid contradicting each other

and present the USG’s message coherently.

7. Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization, and Nongovernmental

Organization Structure in Foreign Countries

a. The Mission. The US has bilateral diplomatic relations with some 180 of the world’s 191

countries. The US bilateral representation in the foreign country, known as the diplomatic mission, is

established in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, of which the US is a

signatory. DOS provides the core staff of a mission and administers the presence of representatives of

other USG agencies in the country. A mission is led by a COM, usually the ambassador, but at times the

chargé des affaires, ad interim (the chargé), when no US ambassador is accredited to the country or the

ambassador is absent from the country. The deputy chief of mission (DCM) is second in charge of the

mission and usually assumes the role of chargé in the absence of the COM. For countries with which the
II-18

Chapter II

JP 3-08

US has no diplomatic relations, the embassy of a friendly country often accepts the duty of watching out

for US affairs in the country and at times houses an interests section staffed with USG employees. In

countries where an IGO is headquartered, the US has a multilateral mission to the IGO in addition to the

bilateral mission to the foreign country.

(1) The Ambassador. The ambassador is the personal representative of the President

to the government of the foreign country or to the IGO to which he or she is accredited and, as

such, is the COM, responsible for recommending and implementing national policy regarding

the foreign country or IGO and for overseeing the activities of USG employees in the mission.

The President with the advice and consent of the Senate appoints the ambassador. The ambassador

has extraordinary decision making authority as the senior USG official on the ground during

crises.

(2) The Deputy Chief of Mission. The DCM is chosen from the ranks of career

foreign service officers through a rigorous selection process to be the principal deputy to the

ambassador. Although not appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate,

the DCM wields considerable power, especially when acting as the COM while in chargé status.

(3) The Embassy. The headquarters of the mission is the embassy, located in the

political capital city of the HN to have regular access to the HN leadership. Although the

various USG agencies that make up the mission may have individual headquarters elsewhere in

the country, the embassy is the focal point for interagency coordination. The main building of

the embassy is termed the chancery; the ambassador’s house is known as the residence. Each

embassy has an associated consular section, frequently located in the chancery, to provide services

to US citizens and to issue visas to foreigners wishing to travel to the US.

(4) Consulates. The size or principal location of commercial activity in some countries

necessitates the establishment of one or more consulates — branch offices of the mission located

at a distance from the embassy. A consulate is headed by a principal officer. In addition to

providing consular services, the consulate is the focal point of interagency coordination for the

assigned consular district.

b. The Chief of Mission. The bilateral COM has authority over all USG personnel in

country, except for those assigned to a combatant command, a USG multilateral mission, or an

IGO. The COM may be accredited to more than one country. The COM interacts daily with

DOS’s strategic-level planners and decision makers. The COM provides recommendations and

considerations for crisis action planning directly to the geographic combatant commander and

commander of a JTF. While forces in the field under a geographic combatant commander are

exempt from the COM’s statutory authority, the COM confers with the combatant commander

regularly to coordinate US military activities with the foreign policy direction being taken by the

USG toward the host country. The COM’s political role is important to the success of military

operations involving the Armed Forces of the United States. Each COM as a formal agreement

with the geographic combatant commander as to which DOD personnel fall under the force

protection responsibility of each.
II-19

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

c. The Country Team. The country team, headed by the COM, is the senior in-country interagency

coordinating body. It is composed of the COM, DCM, the senior member of each US department or

agency in country, and other USG personnel as determined by the COM. Each member presents the

position of his or her parent organization to the country team and conveys country team considerations

back to the parent organization. The COM confers with the country team to develop foreign policy

toward the host country and to disseminate decisions to the members of the mission.

(1) The country team system provides the foundation for rapid interagency consultation

and action on recommendations from the field and effective execution of US programs and

policies. Under the country team concept, agencies are required to coordinate their plans and

operations and keep one another and the COM informed of their activities. Country team members

who represent agencies other than the State Department are routinely in contact with their parent

agencies. Issues arising within the country team can become interagency issues at the national

level if they are not resolved locally or when they have broader national implications.

(2) In almost all bilateral missions, DOD is represented on the country team by

the US Defense Attaché’s Office (USDAO) and the security assistance organization (SAO)

(called by various specific names, such as the Office of Defense Cooperation, the Security

Assistance Office, the Military Group, etc., largely governed by the preference of the receiving

country). The USDAO and the SAO are key military sources of information for interagency

coordination in foreign countries.

(a) USDAO. The USDAO is an office of Service attachés managed by the Defense

Intelligence Agency. A US defense attaché (DATT) heads the defense attaché office in country

and is a member of the country team. The DATT is normally the senior Service attaché assigned

to the mission. The attaches serve as liaisons with their HN counterparts and are valuable

sources of information for the COM and combatant commander on the military affairs of the

HN. The DATT may be accredited to more that one country. The Service attachés report to the

ambassador, but coordinate with and represent their respective Military Departments on Service

matters. The attachés assist in the foreign internal defense (FID) program by exchanging

information with the combatant commander’s staff on HN military, political, humanitarian,

religious, social, and economic conditions and interagency coordination.

(b) SAO. The SAO, the most important FID-related military activity under the

supervision of the COM, oversees the provision of US military assistance to the HN. The SAO

— which may comprise a military assistance advisory group, another military activity, or a

security assistance officer — operates under the direction of the COM but reports administratively

to the combatant commander and is funded by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency. The

SAO assists HN security forces by planning and administering military aspects of the security

assistance program. The SAO also helps the country team communicate HN assistance needs to

policy and budget officials within the USG. In addition, the SAO provides oversight of training

and assistance teams temporarily assigned to the HN. The SAO is prohibited by law from

giving direct training assistance. Instead, training is normally provided through special teams

and organizations assigned to limited tasks for specific periods (e.g., mobile training teams, technical

assistance teams, quality assurance teams).
II-20

Chapter II

JP 3-08

(c) US Defense Representative (USDR). The USDR will normally be the senior

military official assigned to permanent duty with the mission. The USDR is the in-country focal

point for planning, coordinating, and executing support to USG officials for in-country US

defense issues and activities that are not under the purview of the parent DOD components. The

USDR is also the in-country representative of the SecDef, the CJCS, and the geographic combatant

commander and is responsible (under the direction of the COM) for coordinating administrative

and security matters for all DOD elements assigned to the country, except those under the control

of a combatant commander.

d. Geographic Combatant Commands. To effectively bring all instruments of national power

to theater and regional strategies as well as campaign and operation plans, combatant commanders

are augmented with representatives from other USG agencies.

(1) The JIACG participates in deliberate, crisis, and transition planning. Representing

USG agencies at the HQ of the geographic and selected functional combatant commands, each

JIACG is a multi-functional, advisory element that represents the civilian departments and agencies

and facilitates information sharing across the interagency community. It provides regular,

timely, and collaborative day-to-day support for planning, coordination, preparation, and

implementation of interagency activities (see Figure II-3). Specific objectives are to:

(a) Improve operational interagency campaign planning and execution.

(b) Exercise secure collaboration processes and procedures with participating

agencies.

(c) Promote habitual relationships among interagency planners.

(2) Geographic combatant commanders and, increasingly, JTF commanders are assigned a

political advisor (POLAD) by DOS. The POLAD provides USG foreign policy perspectives and

diplomatic considerations and establishes linkages with US embassies in the AOR or joint operations

area (JOA) and with DOS. The POLAD supplies information regarding objectives of DOS that are

relevant to the geographic combatant commander’s theater strategy or commander, joint task force’s

(CJTF’s) plans. The POLAD is directly responsible to the combatant commander or CJTF and can be

of great assistance in interagency coordination.

(3) Other USG agencies may detail liaison personnel to combatant command staffs

to improve interagency coordination. For example, intelligence representatives may be assigned to

staffs of geographic combatant commands to facilitate intelligence and antiterrorism support.

8. The Role of Intergovernmental Organizations

IGOs may be established on a global or regional basis and may have general or specialized

purposes. NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) are regional

security organizations, while the African Union (formerly the Organization of African Unity) and the
II-21

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

Figure II-3. Notional Joint Interagency Coordination Group Structure

NOTIONAL JOINT INTERAGENCY

COORDINATION GROUP STRUCTURE

VIRTUAL

Mission Augmentation

(as needed)

Joint Interagency

Coordination Group

Core Element

International and

Regional

Planners

US Ambassador

Country Team

Combatant

Commander Staff

Directorates

Commander, Joint

Task Force (JTF),

JTF Staff

Washington

Agency Planners

Habitual Links

GROUP FUNCTIONS

Participate in combatant command engagement, deliberate, crisis and transition planning

Advise on civilian agency planning efforts

Work military-civilian operational issues

Present civilian agency perspectives, approaches, capabilities, and limitations

Provide habitual links to Washington and regional planners

Arrange interface on interagency activities

Coordinate with regional players

NOTIONAL CORE STAFFING

Director

Deputy

Department of State Regional Expert

Department of State Functional Expert

US Agency for International Development Officer

Department of Justice

Department of Transportation

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Defense

Department of Defense

Executive Officer

Administration

Senior Civilian

Military

Civilian

Civilian

Civilian

Civilian

Civilian

Civilian

Civilian

Civilian

Military

Military
II-22

Chapter II

JP 3-08

Organization of American States are general regional organizations. A new trend toward subregional

organizations is also evident, particularly in Africa where, for example, the Economic Community of

West African States has taken on some security functions. These organizations have defined structures,

roles, and responsibilities, and may be equipped with the resources and expertise to participate in

complex interagency, IGO, and NGO coordination. The following describes formal or informal ties

between the United States and some of the largest of these regional and IGO security organizations.

a. The United Nations. Coordination with the UN begins at the national level with DOS,

through the US permanent representative (PERMREP) to the UN, who shall have the rank and status

of ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary. The US PERMREP is assisted at the US Mission to

the UN by a military assistant who coordinates appropriate military interests primarily with

the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) and UN Department

of Peacekeeping Operations (UNDPKO).

(1) The UN normally conducts peace operations or FHA under the provisions of a

resolution or mandate from the Security Council or the General Assembly. Mandates are

developed through a political process which generally requires compromise, and sometimes results in

ambiguity. As with all military operations, UN mandates are implemented by US forces through orders

issued by the SecDef through the CJCS. During

such implementation, the political mandates are

converted to workable military orders.

(2) UN Peace and Humanitarian

Organizational Structure. The UN HQ

coordinates PO and FHA around the world. It

does not, however, have a system for

planning and executing these operations that

is comparable to that of the United States.

The UN organizational structure consists of the

HQ and the operational field elements. Thus, there

is a strategic and tactical-level equivalent to the

Armed Forces of the United States, but no

operational counterpart.

(a) At the HQ, the Secretariat

plans and directs missions. Normally, the

UNDPKO serves as the HQ component during

contingencies involving substantial troop

deployments. Some ‘peace building’ missions

with small numbers of military observers are

directed by UNOCHA. UNOCHA is a

coordinating body that pulls together the efforts

of numerous humanitarian/relief organizations and

is the vehicle through which official requests for

military assistance are normally made.

Joint forces support UN-coordinated peace

operations under the command authority of the

US commander.
II-23

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

Supplemental US support by temporary augmentation from the Joint Staff and Service HQ staffs may

be provided for specific requirements. UN special missions, such as the UN Protection Force in

Bosnia-Herzegovina, operate under the direction of the UN Secretary General (SYG).

(b) Field level coordination is normally determined on an ad hoc basis,

depending on which relief organization is playing the major role. The United Nations Office

of the High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Program, and UNDPKO are often the

logical candidates. UNOCHA may deploy a field team to coordinate FHA or the Emergency

Relief Coordinator may designate the resident UN coordinator as Humanitarian Coordinator.

Coordination with the UN Resident Coordinator may be degraded if UN personnel are pulled

out in the face of increased threats.

(c) In certain situations the UN SYG may appoint a Special Representative

who reports directly to the SYG but also advises UNDPKO and UNOCHA at UN HQ. The

Special Representative may direct day-to-day operations, as was the case in the UN operation in

Cambodia.

(3) United States Military Support. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the United

Nations Participation Act of 1945, and Executive Order 10206 (Support of Peaceful Settlements

of Disputes) authorize various types of US military support to the UN, either on a reimbursable

or non-reimbursable basis.

(a) US military operations in support of the UN usually fall within Chapter VI

(Peaceful Settlement of Disputes) or Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace,

Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the UN Charter.

See Vol II of this publication, Annex E, “United Nations,” of Appendix C, “Regional and

Intergovernmental Organizations,” for details regarding the UN Charter and Chapter VI and

VII of that charter.

(b) UN-sponsored peace operations normally employ a multinational force (MNF)

under a single commander. The MNF commander is appointed by the SYG with the consent of

the UN Security Council and reports directly to the SYG’s Special Representative or to the SYG.

When the United States provides support to a UN-sponsored peace operation, the US military

structure that is used to conduct multinational operations normally is a JTF. The CJTF should

expect to conduct operations as part of an MNF. US forces may participate across a range of military

operations in concert with a variety of USG agencies, military forces of other nations, local authorities,

IGOs, and NGOs.

(c) The chain of command from the President to the lowest US commander in

the field remains inviolate. On a case-by-case basis, the President may place US forces participating

in multilateral peace operations under UN auspices under the operational control (OPCON) (with

modifications) of a competent UN commander for specific UN operations authorized by the Security
II-24

Chapter II

JP 3-08

Council. The President retains and will never relinquish command authority over US forces. The

greater the US military role, the less likely it will be that the United States will agree to have a UN

commander exercise OPCON over US forces. OPCON for UN multilateral peace operations is

given for a specific time frame or mission and includes the authority to assign tasks to US forces already

deployed by the President and to US units led by US officers. Within the limits of OPCON, a foreign

UN commander cannot change the mission or deploy US forces outside the operational area agreed to

by the President. Nor may the foreign UN commander separate units, divide their supplies, administer

discipline, promote anyone, or change their internal organization.

b. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The NATO experience exemplifies the

interagency process on a regional level. Its evolution has been propelled, often in the face of

crisis, by the demands for cooperation that characterize every regional effort. The durability of

NATO is testament to its success in interagency coordination.

(1) NATO membership presently consists of 26 nations.

(2) Coordination of US efforts within NATO begins with the Presidential appointment

of a PERMREP, who has the rank and status of ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary

and is a COM under the Foreign Service Act of 1980. As with any treaty, US commitment to the

North Atlantic Treaty reflects the balance between the power of the President to conduct foreign

policy and Congress’ power of the purse. Congress has authorized and regularly funds logistic

support for elements of the armed forces deployed to NATO outside the United States and

permits cross-servicing agreements in return for reciprocal support. Beyond day-to-day

operations, training exercises, and logistics authorized by statute, employment of US military

force with NATO requires Presidential action and may be subject to congressional review,

including those employments authorized and limited by the War Powers Act.

c. Public Affairs Planning with Intergovernmental Organizations. The Office of the

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) (OASD(PA)) provides overall PA guidance and

coordinates PA actions affecting IGOs. Planning for support to UN missions will normally

include coordination with UN press office personnel through OASD(PA). JTF PA efforts should

include the identification of POCs and authorized spokespersons within each IGO.

See Vol II of this publication, Appendix C for a detailed discussion of these and other “Regional

and Intergovernmental Organizations.”

9. The Nongovernmental Organizations’ Connection to Joint Operations

a. Where long-term problems precede a deepening crisis, NGOs are frequently on scene

before the US military and are willing to operate in high-risk areas. They will most likely

remain long after military forces have departed. NGOs are independent, diverse, flexible,

grassroots-focused, primary relief providers.

b. NGOs provide assistance to over 250 million people annually. Because of their capability

to respond quickly and effectively to crises, they can lessen the civil-military resources that a
II-25

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

commander would otherwise have to devote to an operation. Although philosophical differences

may exist between military forces and NGOs, short-term objectives are frequently very similar.

Discovering this common ground is essential. A very important issue to keep in mind when dealing with

NGOs is that they will likely object to any sense that their activities have been co-opted for the achievement

of military objectives. Their mission is one of a humanitarian nature and not one of assisting the military

in accomplishing its objectives. Ultimately, activities and capabilities of NGOs must be factored into the

commander’s assessment of conditions and resources and integrated into the selected COA.

c. The Role of NGOs. NGOs are playing an increasingly important role in the international

arena. Working alone, alongside the US military, or with other US agencies, NGOs are assisting

in all the world’s trouble spots where humanitarian or other assistance is needed. NGOs may range in

size and experience from those with multimillion dollar budgets and decades of global experience in

developmental and humanitarian relief to newly created small organizations dedicated to a particular

emergency or disaster. The capability, equipment and other resources, and expertise vary

greatly from one NGO to another. NGOs are involved in such diverse activities as education,

technical projects, relief activities, refugee assistance, public policy, and development programs. The

sheer number of lives they affect, the resources they provide, and the moral authority conferred by their

humanitarian focus enable NGOs to wield a great deal of influence within the interagency and international

communities. In fact, individual organizations are often funded by national and international donor

agencies as implementing partners to carry out specific functions. Similarly, internationally active NGOs

may employ indigenous groups, such as the Mother Teresa Society in Kosovo, as local implementing

partners.

Air component forces operating over the mountains of northern

Italy in support of DENY FLIGHT.
II-26

Chapter II

JP 3-08

d. The Increasing Number of NGOs. A JTF or MNF may encounter scores of NGOs in

a JOA. In 1999 in Kosovo, more than 150 IGOs and NGOs had applied to be registered in the

province. Over 350 such agencies are registered with the USAID. InterAction, a US-based consortium

of NGOs has a membership of over 160 private agencies that operate in 180 countries. The International

Council of Voluntary Agencies has a predominantly European membership numbering in the hundreds.

Over 1,500 NGOs around the world are registered with the UN’s Department of Public Information,

while over 2,400 have ‘consultative status’ with its Economic and Social Council. It is important to note

that NGOs may not vet their members as thoroughly as government and military organizations. Some

NGOs have had involvement in funding and facilitating the travel of terrorist elements. While this is not

the norm, it is an issue that merits consideration in the interagency, IGO, and NGO operations environment.

e. Military and Nongovernmental Organization Relations. Whereas the military’s initial

objective is stabilization and security for its own forces, NGOs seek to address humanitarian

needs first and are often unwilling to subordinate their objectives to achievement of an

end state which they had no part in determining. The extent to which specific NGOs are

willing to cooperate with the military can thus vary considerably. NGOs desire to preserve the

impartial character of their operations, accept only minimal necessary assistance from the military,

and ensure that military actions in the relief and civic action are consistent with the standards

and priorities agreed on within the civilian relief community.

(1) The extensive involvement, local contacts, and experience gained in various nations

make private organizations valuable sources of information about local and regional affairs and

civilian attitudes, and they are sometimes willing to share such information on the basis of

collegiality. Virtually all IGO and NGO operations interact with military operations in some

way — they use the same (normally limited) lines of communications; they draw on the same

sources for local interpreters and translators; and they compete for buildings and storage space.

Thus, sharing of operational information in both directions is an essential element of successful

civil-military operations (CMO).

(2) While some organizations will seek the protection afforded by armed forces or the

use of military transport to move relief supplies to, or sometimes within, the operational area,

others may avoid a close affiliation with military forces, preferring autonomous, impartial operations.

This is particularly the case if US military forces are a belligerent to a conflict in the operational area.

Most NGOs are outfitted with very little, if any, equipment for personal security, preferring instead to

rely upon the good will of the local populace for their safety. Any activity that strips an NGO’s

appearance of impartiality, such as close collaboration with one particular military force, may

well eliminate that organization’s primary source of security. NGOs may also avoid cooperation

with the military out of suspicion that military forces intend to take control of, influence, or even prevent

their operations. Commanders and their staffs should be sensitive to these concerns and consult these

organizations, along with the competent national or international authorities, to identify local conditions

that may impact effective military-NGO cooperation.

(3) PA planning should include the identification of POCs with NGOs that will operate

in the JOA. Military spokespersons should comment on NGO operations based on approved PA

guidance and make referrals of media queries to the appropriate organization’s spokesperson.
II-27

Established Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Relationships

f. Military Support of NGOs. The SecDef may determine that it is in the national interest

to task US military forces with missions that bring them into close contact with (if not support

of) IGOs and NGOs. In such circumstances, it is mutually beneficial to closely coordinate the

activities of all participants. A climate of cooperation between IGOs, NGOs, and military forces

should be the goal. The creation of a framework for structured civil-military interaction, such as

a CMOC, allows the military and NGOs to meet and work together in advancing common goals.

Taskings to support IGOs and NGOs are normally for a short-term purpose due to extraordinary

events. In most situations, logistics, communications, and security are those capabilities most

needed. It is, however, crucial to remember that in such missions the role of the armed forces

should be to enable, not perform, IGO and NGO tasks. Military commanders and other decision

makers should also understand that mutually beneficial arrangements between the armed forces

and other organizations may be critical to the success of the campaign or operation plan.

See Vol II, Appendix B of this publication, “Nongovernmental Organizations.” Annex A of

Appendix B contains “InterAction’s Geographic Index of NGOs.”
II-28

Chapter II

JP 3-08

Intentionally Blank
CHAPTER III

ORGANIZING FOR SUCCESSFUL INTERAGENCY,

INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION, AND

NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION COORDINATION

III-1

“We must recognize that the Department of Defense contribution to interagency

operations is often more that of enabler (versus decisive force, a function we are

institutionally more comfortable with). For example, in Rwanda, the military served

as an enabling force which allowed the NGOs and PVOs to execute their function

of humanitarian relief. A key component to our success in Rwanda was the fact

that we consciously stayed in the background and withdrew our forces as soon

as the enabling function was complete.”

General George A. Joulwan, USA

Commander, US European Command

21 October 1993 – 10 July 1997

1. Organizing for Success

a. When campaign, deliberate, or crisis action planning is required, the degree to which

military and civilian components can be integrated and harmonized will bear directly on its

efficiency and success. To the extent feasible, joint planning should include key participants

from the outset. The combatant commander through his strategic concept builds the interagency,

IGO, and NGO activities into Annex V of the OPLAN. Subordinate JFCs build interagency,

IGO, and NGO participation into their operations. Within the AOR and the JOA, appropriate

decision-making structures are established at combatant command, JTF HQ, and tactical levels

in order to coordinate and resolve military, political, humanitarian, and other issues. This chapter

will suggest meaningful tools for the commander to organize for successful interagency

coordination, whether in domestic or foreign operations, and focus on the operational level and

below.

b. In concert with the NSC, DOD, and Joint Staff, combatant commanders should:

(1) Recognize all USG agencies, departments, IGOs, and NGOs that are or should

be involved in the operation. In most cases, initial planning and coordination with USG agencies

will have occurred within the NSC, DOD, the Military Services, and the Joint Staff.

(2) Understand the authoritative interagency, IGO, and NGO hierarchy, to include the

lead agency identified at the national level, and determine the agency of primary responsibility.

Understand the differences between roles and responsibilities of DOD, the CJCS, the Joint

Staff, and the Services in domestic and foreign operations. Understand the different command

arrangements in domestic and foreign operations.

(3) Define the objectives of the response. These should be broadly outlined in the

statement of conclusions from the relevant NSC, NSC/PC, or NSC/DC meetings that authorized

the overall USG participation. Within the military chain of command, they are further elaborated

in tasking orders that include the commander’s intent.
III-2

Chapter III

JP 3-08

“In Operation SUPPORT HOPE, the US military and the UN and NGO community

in-theater literally ‘met on the dance floor.’ Given that a JTF commander’s concern

will be to ensure unity of effort (not command!), too brief a time to establish

relationships can exacerbate the tensions that exist naturally between and among

so many disparate agencies with their own internal agenda and outside sponsors.

The commander, therefore, will find that, short of insuring the protection of his

force, his most pressing requirement will be to meet his counterparts in the US

government, UN, and NGO hierarchies and take whatever steps he thinks

appropriate to insure the smooth integration of military support . . .”

Lieutenant General Daniel R. Schroeder, USA

Commander, JTF SUPPORT HOPE

(4) Define COAs for the assigned military tasks, while striving for operational

compatibility with other USG agencies.

(5) Cooperate with each agency, department, or organization and obtain a clear

definition of the role that each plays. In many situations, participating agencies, departments,

and organizations may not have representatives either in theater or collocated with the combatant

command’s staff. It is then advisable for the combatant commander to request temporary

assignment of liaison officers (LNOs) from the participating agencies, departments, and

organizations to the combatant command or JTF HQ. In some cases, it may be useful or even

necessary for the military to send LNOs to selected other organizations.

(6) Identify potential obstacles arising from conflicting departmental or agency

priorities. Early identification of potential obstacles and concurrence as to solutions by all

participants is the first step toward resolution. Too often these obstacles are assumed to have

been addressed by another agency, department, or organization. If the obstacles cannot be

resolved they must immediately be forwarded up the chain of command for resolution.

(7) Military and civilian planners should identify resources relevant to the situation.

Determine which agencies, departments, or organizations are committed to provide these

resources in order to reduce duplication, increase coherence in the collective effort, and

identify what additional resources are needed.

(8) Define the desired military end states, plan for transition from military to

civil authority, and recommend exit criteria.

(9) Maximize the joint force assets to support long-term goals. The military’s

contribution should optimize the varied and extensive resources available to complement and

support the broader, long-range objectives of the local, national or international response to a

crisis.
III-3

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

(10) Coordinate the establishment of interagency assessment teams that can rapidly

deploy to the area to evaluate the situation. These can include ad hoc multilateral teams or teams

organized under the auspices of an IGO such as the UN or OSCE.

(11) Implement crisis action planning (CAP) for incidents or situations involving a

threat to the United States, its territories, citizens, military forces, and possessions or vital interests

that may require interagency coordination to achieve US objectives.

2. Interagency and Nongovernmental Organization Crisis Response: Domestic

Operations

a. Military operations inside the US and its territories, though limited in many respects, fall

into two mission areas HD — for which DOD serves as the LFA and military forces are used to

conduct military operations in defense of the homeland; and CS — for which DOD serves in a

supporting role to other agencies by providing military support to civil authorities at the federal,

state, and local level (see Figure III-1). The President and SecDef define the circumstances

under which DOD will be involved in the HD and CS missions.

(1) For HD missions the President, exercising his constitutional authority as

Commander in Chief, authorizes military action to counter threats to and within the United

States.

(2) When conducting CS missions, DOD will be in support of an LFA. The domestic

operating environment for military CS presents unique challenges to the JFC. It is imperative

that commanders and staffs at all levels understand the relationships, both statutory and operational,

among all federal agencies involved in the operation. Moreover, it is equally important to

understand DOD’s role in supporting these other federal agencies. DOD will provide military

assistance to the LFA upon request by the appropriate authority and approval by SecDef.

There are various national level plans, such as the Initial National Response Plan (INRP)/

FRP, which detail the roles and missions of various federal departments and agencies in

the event of a domestic crisis. [Note: the provisions of the FRP continue to provide guidance

for all activities not specifically subsumed in the INRP but will eventually be integrated into a

NRP.]

(3) Within the CS mission area, circumstances may arise that fall into the realm of

emergency and temporary non-emergency incidents. In emergency circumstances, such as

managing the consequences of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, critical infrastructure

protection, or other events, DOD could be asked to provide capabilities that other agencies

do not possess or that have been exhausted or overwhelmed.

b. Command and Control Relationships and Responsibilities

(1) For HD missions, DOD is in the lead with other federal agencies in support.

DOD’s capability to respond quickly to any threat or situation places a high demand on the same

resources. For example, the same trained and ready force constituted to achieve strategic objectives
III-4

Chapter III

JP 3-08

Figure III-1. Model for Coordination Between Military and Nonmilitary Organizations -

Domestic Civil Support

outside the homeland may also be required to execute HD missions within the homeland.

Guidelines for C2, as depicted in JP 0-2, Unified Action Armed Force (UNAAF), are equally

applicable to HD operations.

Request for Assistance

Disaster/Emergency

Declaration

ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF

DEFENSE

(HOMELAND

DEFENSE)

COMBATANT COMMAND STAFF

INTERAGENCY

PLANNING

CELL

LIAISON

SECTION

INTERAGENCY

INFORMATION

BUREAU

JOINT

INTERAGENCY

COORDINATION

GROUP

JOINT DIRECTOR

OF MILITARY

SUPPORT

COMBATANT

COMMANDER

PRINCIPAL

FEDERAL

OFFICIAL

STATE

COORDINATING

OFFICER

STATE AND

COUNTY

DEPARTMENTS

AND AGENCIES

SECRETARY

OF DEFENSE

COMMAND

DIRECTION & SUPERVISION

COORDINATION

S

T

R

A

T

E

G

I

C

O

P

E

R

A

T

I

O

N

A

L

T

A

C

T

I

C

A

L

JOINT

STAFF

CHAIRMAN OF

THE JOINT CHIEFS

OF STAFF

DEFENSE

COORDINATING

OFFICER

CIVIL-MILITARY

OPERATIONS

CENTER

MODEL FOR COORDINATION BETWEEN

MILITARY AND NONMILITARY

ORGANIZATIONS DOMESTIC CIVIL SUPPORT

OTHER

AGENCIES

AMERICAN

RED

CROSS

DEPARTMENT

OF

HOMELAND

SECURITY

PRESIDENT GOVERNOR

STATE

ADJUTANT

GENERAL

AMERICAN RED CROSS

NONGOVERNMENTAL

ORGANIZATIONS

JOINT TASK

FORCE

COMMANDER,

JOINT TASK

FORCE

MUNICIPAL

DEPARTMENTS

& OFFICES
III-5

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

(2) Under certain circumstances, military commanders are allowed to take

necessary action under immediate response authority. Responses to requests from civil

authorities prior to receiving authority from the President or chain of command are made when

immediate support is critical to save lives, prevent human suffering, or to mitigate great property

damage. Under these circumstances, support elements must advise the DOD EXECSEC through

command channels by the most expeditious means available and seek approval or additional

authorizations. The EXECSEC will notify SecDef, the CJCS, and any other appropriate officials.

(3) Principal and supporting DOD participants involved in the execution of HD or CS

mission areas may include: SecDef, ASD(HD), Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special

Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict [ASD(SO/LIC)], Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Reserve Affairs [ASD(RA)], CJCS, Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command

(CDRNORAD), CDRUSNORTHCOM, CDRUSPACOM, Commander, US Strategic

Command, Commander, US Special Operations Command, Commander, US Transportation

Command, Commander, US Joint Forces Command, Commander, US Southern Command,

and the Services. Reserve component forces and the USCG are included in this grouping when

under Title 10 status.

(4) Secretary of Defense. SecDef has overall authority for DOD and is the President’s

principal advisor on military matters concerning HS. Authority for the conduct and execution of

the HD mission resides with SecDef. For CS missions, SecDef retains approval authority for

the use of forces, personnel, units, and equipment. SecDef has the primary responsibility within

DOD to provide the overall policy and oversight for CS in the event of a domestic incident.

(5) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense. The Office of the

ASD(HD) is established within the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. ASD(HD)

is responsible for the overall supervision of all DOD HD and CS activities. ASD(HD) ensures

internal coordination of DOD policy direction, assists SecDef in providing guidance, through

CJCS, to combatant commanders for HD and CS missions and conducts coordination with the

DHS.

(6) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity

Conflict. ASD(SO/LIC) provides civilian oversight for combating terrorism. This oversight

includes supervision of policy, program planning, and allocation and the use of resources.

ASD(SO/LIC) also represents SecDef on combating terrorism matters outside the DOD.

(7) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. ASD(RA) is responsible

for monitoring Reserve Component readiness. ASD(RA) provides policy regarding the

appropriate integration of Reserve and National Guard (NG) forces into HS response efforts. In

coordination with ASD (HD), the Joint Staff, the Services, and the National Guard Bureau,

ASD(RA) ensures appropriate reserve and NG forces are integrated into HS response operations.

(8) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. CJCS has numerous responsibilities

relating to HS. These include advising the President and SecDef on operational policies,

responsibilities, and programs; assisting SecDef in implementing operational responses to threats
III-6

Chapter III

JP 3-08

or an act of terrorism; and translating SecDef guidance into operation orders to provide assistance

to the LFA. CJCS ensures that HD and CS plans and operations are compatible with other

military plans. CJCS also assists combatant commanders in meeting their operational requirements

for executing HD missions and for providing CS that has been approved by SecDef. In the CS

area, CJCS serves as the principal military advisor to SecDef and the President in preparing for

and responding to CBRNE situations, ensures that military planning is accomplished to support

the LFA for CrM and CM, and provides strategic guidance to the combatant commanders for the

conduct of counterdrug operations.

(9) Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). By

international agreement (The NORAD Agreement and Terms of Reference, and the Canadian/

US Basic Security Document 100/35), CDRNORAD leads a bi-national command composed

of Canadian and US forces responsible for aerospace control and aerospace warning for North

America. NORAD’s relationship with USNORTHCOM is unusual in that while they have

separate missions defined by separate sources, a majority of USNORTHCOM’s AOR overlaps

with NORAD’s operational area. NORAD and USNORTHCOM are two separate commands,

and neither command is subordinate to the other or a part of the other, but they work very closely

together.

(10) Commander, US Northern Command. CDRUSNORTHCOM has specific

responsibilities for HD and for assisting civil authorities. USNORTHCOM’s mission is to conduct

operations to deter, prevent, and defeat threats and aggression aimed at the United States, its

territories, and interests within the assigned AOR and as directed by the President or SecDef,

provide military assistance to civil authorities including CM operations. USNORTHCOM

embodies the principles of unity of effort and unity of command as the single, responsible,

designated DOD commander for overall C2 of DOD support to civil authorities within the

USNORTHCOM AOR. CDRUSNORTHCOM takes all operational orders from and is

responsible to the President through SecDef.

(11) Commander, US Pacific Command. CDRUSPACOM serves as DOD principal

planning agent and supported commander for military HS activities in Hawaii, Territory of

Guam, Territory of American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, US

administrative entities, and US territorial waters within Pacific Command. CDRUSPACOM is

the supported commander within the designated AOR for HD missions. CDRUSPACOM is

also responsible for combating terrorism actions, force protection (FP) and performing defense

critical infrastructure protection. When directed by the President, CDRUSPACOM is responsible

for conducting combat operations within the AOR to deter, prevent and defeat an incursion of

sovereign territory. CDRUSPACOM is also responsible for planning for CS operations within

the AOR.

c. The appropriate geographic combatant commander is designated as the supported

commander, depending on the location of the event. As necessary, the supported combatant

commander activates and deploys an initial C2 element and follow-on JTF to serve as the C2

node for the designated DOD CM forces responding to the event. The commander of the JTF

exercises OPCON over designated DOD forces.
III-7

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

d. The DCO is likely the initial DOD representative on-site. The DCO coordinates

DOD support to civilian agencies through the FCO or PFO at the disaster field office (DFO).

FEMA sets up a DFO in or near the affected area to coordinate federal recovery activities with

those of state and local governments upon federal declaration of a disaster. When the DOD C2

HQ is deployed, it accepts OPCON of the DCO. However, the DCO remains the POC for the

FCO or PFO in accordance with the FRP. Once DOD forces have been deployed, requests from

civilian agencies are coordinated through the DCO under the procedures delineated in the FRP.

e. The JTF provides personnel, equipment, and supplies to a disaster area. Through

the DCO, the JTF is oriented on identifying tasks, generating forces, prioritizing assets against

requirements, assisting federal and private agencies, and providing disaster response support to

the local government based on FEMA mission assignments.

f. Organizational tools that may assist interagency support of civil authorities include:

(1) Interagency Planning Cell (IPC). The IPC is activated upon receipt of the CJCS

warning or alert order or at the direction of the combatant commander. The IPC is established

to provide timely advice to the supported combatant commander about the resources of

other agencies in the relief effort. An IPC will enable a coherent and efficient planning and

coordination effort through the participation of interagency subject-matter experts. Moreover,

the burden of coordination at the JTF level could also be lightened. Consideration should also

be given to establishment of IPCs on the staffs of supporting combatant commanders, such as

Commander, United States Transportation Command.

(2) Liaison Section. Liaisons provided to the LFA and other USG agencies, as

necessary, act as spokespersons for the combatant commander, to clarify operational concepts

and terminology, and to assist in the assessment of military requirements. The intrinsic capabilities

of military units to perform in nontraditional roles are important in describing the military

contribution to the Federal response. Conversely, agency liaisons working with the military can

assist the commander to maximize agency core competencies and concentrate the resources of

engaged agencies.

(a) Emergency Preparedness Liaison Officers. EPLOs are directed by the

Military Services and selected DOD agencies to coordinate the use of DOD resources to support

civil authorities through the DCO during Presidentially-declared disasters and emergencies.

EPLOs serve in major civil and military HQs that have primary responsibility for planning,

coordinating, and executing military operations during disasters.

(b) Supported commanders, such as CDRUSNORTHCOM or CDRUSPACOM,

are responsible for a liaison structure at the state level within their respective AORs.

(3) Interagency Information Bureau (IIB). An IIB at each echelon of command

provides information to the public. Emphasis should be placed on describing and promoting

the federal effort. Any friction between agencies should be resolved internally.
III-8

Chapter III

JP 3-08

(4) Standing Joint Force Headquarters. The standing joint force headquarters

(SJFHQ) is a full-time, trained and equipped, joint C2 staff element. The SJFHQ is fully integrated

into a combatant commander’s planning and operations. SJFHQ enhances the combatant

command’s options to quickly deter or mitigate a crisis and reduces the time required to establish

a fully functional JTF HQ within a combatant command’s AOR.

3. Crisis Response: Foreign Operations

a. The geographic combatant commander and staff should be continuously engaged

in interagency, IGO, and NGO coordination by establishing working relationships with

relevant organizations and agencies long before CAP and military resources are required.

As situations requiring CAP develop, the normal flow of the State Department and other agencies

reporting from the field will increase significantly. This will be amplified by informal contacts

between the combatant commander’s staff (including the POLAD and JIACG) and appropriate

embassies as well as the relevant bureaus at the State Department. Such informal communications

greatly facilitate the development of viable COAs, but should not be used to circumvent

established, authoritative planning and direction processes (see Figure III-2).

b. Crisis Action Organization. The combatant command crisis action organization is

activated upon receipt of the CJCS warning or alert order or at the direction of the combatant

commander. Activation of other crisis action cells to administer the specific requirements of

task force operations may be directed shortly thereafter. These cells support not only functional

requirements of the JTF such as logistics, but also coordination of military and nonmilitary

activities and the establishment of a temporary framework for interagency coordination. When

establishing a JTF, the combatant commander will select a CJTF, assign a JOA, specify a mission,

provide planning guidance, and, in coordination with the CJTF, allocate forces to the JTF from

the Service and functional component forces assigned to the combatant command and request

forces from supporting combatant commands, as required. In contrast, NGOs in the operational

area may not have a similarly defined structure for controlling activities. Further, many of these

organizations may be present in the operational area at the invitation and funding of the host

country. As such, they may be structured to conform with HN regulations or restrictions which

may conflict with military operations. Liaison and coordinating mechanisms that the

combatant commander may elect to establish to facilitate the synchronization of military

and nonmilitary activities include:

(1) Humanitarian Assistance Survey Team (HAST). Early in a developing CCO,

an assessment may be required to determine what resources are immediately required to stabilize

a humanitarian crisis. The supported combatant commander may deploy a HAST to acquire

information for operation order development, to determine the capability of the agencies

and organizations already operating in the crisis area, and to what extent military assistance

is needed until humanitarian relief organizations or peacekeeping elements can marshal

their resources. In addition to members of the combatant commander’s staff, HAST membership

may include key US agency and NGO representatives. Before deployment, the HAST should

be provided with the current threat assessment, operational intelligence, and geospatial intelligence.

Upon arrival in country, the HAST should:
III-9

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

(a) Establish liaison and coordinate assessment efforts with the US Embassy or

Consulate to help gain access to the appropriate HN officials and to facilitate additional

interagency, IGO, and NGO coordination. Integration of the resources provided by these contacts

Figure III-2. Model for Coordination Between Military and Nonmilitary Organizations –

Foreign Operations

MODEL FOR COORDINATION BETWEEN

MILITARY AND NONMILITARY

ORGANIZATIONS - FOREIGN OPERATIONS

PRESIDENT

SECRETARY OF

STATE

LIAISON

TEAMS

S

T

R

A

T

E

G

I

C

O

P

E

R

A

T

I

O

N

A

L

T

A

C

T

I

C

A

L

JOINT

TASK

FORCE

COMMANDER,

JOINT TASK

FORCE

COMMAND

DIRECTION &

SUPERVISION

COORDINATION

JOINT

STAFF

CHAIRMAN OF THE

JOINT CHIEFS OF

STAFF

EXECUTIVE

STEERING

GROUP

HUMANITARIAN

OPERATIONS

CENTER

UN MILITARY

FORCE

HEADQUARTERS

COUNTRY

TEAM

US AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL

DEVELOPMENT / OFFICE OF FOREIGN DISASTER

ASSISTANCE / DISASTER ASSISTANCE

RESPONSE TEAM

NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AGENCIES

OTHER US GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

HOST-NATION AGENCIES AND BUSINESSES

OTHER INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

AMBASSADOR/

CHIEF OF MISSION

OTHER

AGENCIES OFFICE OF THE

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

SECRETARY OF

DEFENSE

HUMANITARIAN

ASSISTANCE

SURVEY

TEAM

HUMANITARIAN

ASSISTANCE

COORDINATION

CENTER

LOGISTICS

OPERATING

CENTER

LIAISON

SECTION

JOINT

INTERAGENCY

COORDINATION

GROUP

COMBATANT

COMMANDER

COMBATANT COMMAND STAFF

FOREIGN

MILITARY

LIAISON

CIVIL-MILITARY

OPERATIONS

CENTER
III-10

Chapter III

JP 3-08

will reduce the potential for duplication of effort and enhance calculations of logistics required

to support the collective effort.

(b) Establish liaison with the HN, NGOs, UN organizations, supported

commanders or their representatives, and other national teams.

(c) Define coordinating relationships and lines of authority among the military,

the embassy or consulate, USAID, and other USG and non-USG organizations. This action

helps identify specific support arrangements required for the collective logistic effort.

(2) Agencies providing support services include USAID and its Office of Foreign

Disaster Assistance (OFDA) disaster assistance response team (DART). DART provides

rapid response field presence to international disasters with specialists trained in a variety of

disaster relief skills. In concert with the country team, the DART can determine the full range of

services necessary in cases of natural disaster. Figure III-3 depicts the organization of the DART.

Figure III-3. United States Government Foreign Disaster Assistance Response Team

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

FOREIGN DISASTER ASSISTANCE RESPONSE TEAM

Communications

Officer

Administrative

Support

Specialist

Procurement

Specialist

Administrative

Officer

Logistics

Coordinator

Operations

Coordinator

Planning

Coordinator

Supply

Officer

Medical

Officer

Information

Officer

Field

Officer

Program

Officer

Technical/Scientific

Specialists

Aviation

Officer

Search and Rescue

Task Force Leader

Transportation

Officer

Technical/Scientific

Operations Specialist

Team Leader

Liaison Officer Safety Officer

Press Officer Contracts

Officer
III-11

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

For further guidance on FHA, refer to JP 3-07.6, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for

Foreign Humanitarian Assistance.

(3) Humanitarian Assistance Coordination Center (HACC). The supported

combatant commander may establish a HACC to assist with interagency coordination and

planning. The HACC provides the critical link between the combatant commander and

other USG agencies, IGOs, and NGOs that may participate in an FHA operation. Normally,

the HACC is a temporary body that operates during the early planning and coordination stages

of the operation. Once a CMOC or civilian humanitarian operations center (HOC) has been

established by the lead relief agency, the role of the HACC diminishes, and its functions are

accomplished through the normal organization of the combatant commander’s staff.

(4) Logistics Readiness Center (LRC). Combatant commanders exercise directive

authority for logistics within the AOR. The combatant commander reviews requirements of

the joint forces and establishes priorities through the CAP process to use supplies, facilities,

mobility assets, and personnel effectively. The combatant commander may also be responsible

for provision of supplies for certain interagency personnel. A LRC functions as the single POC

for coordinating the timely and flexible logistic response into the AOR, relieving the JTF of as

much of this burden as possible. Other actions that the LRC may perform or coordinate include:

(a) Continuous coordination with strategic-level providers such as the Defense

Logistics Agency and the United States Transportation Command, the Services, and the combatant

commander’s staff to ensure the required flow of support to the JTF.

(b) Determining the appropriate common-user logistic support responsibilities

and organizational structure, to include the appointment of lead Service or agency support.

Lead agents may include non-DOD agencies, HN, or multinational partners.

(5) Liaison Section. As in domestic operations, the liaison section in foreign

operations is crucial to coordination with USG, nongovernmental, and intergovernmental

organizations. A liaison section assists the combatant commander by providing a single forum

for the coordination of military activities among MNFs, other USG agencies, engaged IGOs and

NGOs, the HN and indigenous population. As in domestic operations, military forces, engaged

agencies, and the HN should consider providing liaison personnel to the combatant commander’s

staff in order to maximize information flow and interagency coordination. Alternatively, as in

Albania during Operation ALLIED HARBOR, the HN may establish a coordination center

around which the activities of external actors are organized and to which they provide liaison

personnel.

CIVIL-MILITARY COOPERATION

“The Albanian Government showed considerable vision in establishing an

Emergency Management Group (EMG) to coordinate the activities of the

key actors in resolving the humanitarian crisis. The Albanian Force (AFOR)
III-12

Chapter III

JP 3-08

was able to reinforce the EMG with staff at the shelter, medical, security

and logistic coordination desks. This provided much needed assistance

and developed a mutually supportive and trusting relationship, which proved

most effective. In addition, an AFOR help desk was established in the NGO

information center, based in the pyramid building in the center of Tirana, to

provide advice to some 178 registered (and some 50-60 unregistered) NGOs.”

SOURCE: Operation ALLIED HARBOR:

NATO’s Humanitarian Mission to Albania

c. USG Agencies and NGO Relationships. Interagency, IGO, and NGO preparation,

planning, and participation in a CCO should occur at the earliest phases of an anticipated operation.

Coordinating the actions of USG agencies, IGOs, and NGOs throughout all phases of an

operation assists in the integration and coordination of the overall operation.

(1) The USG, via the NSC, NSC/PC, or NSC/DC, may develop and promulgate a

POLMIL plan for CCOs. The NSC, either through the interagency committee system or via

the POLMIL plan, designate a lead government agency for the mission to ensure

coordination among the various USG agencies. Combatant commanders and subordinate

JFCs participate in the development of the POLMIL plan through the Joint Staff.

(2) Within the theater, the geographic combatant commander is the focal point for

planning and implementation of regional military strategies that require interagency, IGO, and

NGO coordination. Combatant commanders may also (and on all CJCS approved plans

are directed to) utilize Annex V, “Interagency Coordination,” of OPLANs to request/

consider interagency, IGO, and NGO activities and to provide guidance for incorporating

the interagency, IGO, and NGO community into military operations. Combatant

commanders should coordinate Annex V with the relevant USG agencies via the Joint Staff.

COAs developed by the combatant command staff should consider and incorporate relationships

that have been developed with USG agencies, IGOs, and NGOs.

4. Forming a Joint Task Force

a. When it is necessary to engage the military instrument of national power, and to

establish a JTF, the JTF establishing authority is normally a combatant commander. Figure

III-4 outlines key JTF establishing authority responsibilities. The combatant commander develops

the mission statement and concept of operations based upon direction from the SecDef as

communicated through the CJCS. If developed, the NSC’s interagency POLMIL plan may

affect the mission statement. The combatant commander appoints a CJTF and, in conjunction

with the CJTF, determines the necessary military capabilities required to accomplish military

objectives. A CJTF has the authority to organize forces and the JTF HQ as necessary to accomplish

the objectives.

b. The JFC may establish a joint civil-military operations task force (JCMOTF) to

meet a specific contingency mission or to support humanitarian, nation assistance operations, or
III-13

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

a theater campaign of limited duration. There may be a requirement for civil affairs representation

because of their professional knowledge of the functional issues involved, as well as their expertise

in dealing with other USG agencies, IGOs, and NGOs.

Figure III-4. Joint Task Force Establishing Authority Responsibilities

Appointing the commander, joint task force (CJTF), assigning the mission and

forces, and exercising command and control of the joint task force (JTF).

In coordination with the CJTF, determining the military forces

and other national means required to accomplish the mission.

Allocating or requesting forces required.

Defining the joint operations area (JOA) in terms of geography and/or time.

(Note: The JOA should be assigned through the appropriate combatant

commander and activated at the date and time specified.)

Ensuring the development and approval of rules of engagement tailored to the

situation.

Monitoring the operational situation and keeping superiors informed through

periodic reports.

Providing guidance (e.g., planning guidelines with a recognizable end state,

situation, concepts, tasks, execution orders, administration, logistics, media

releases, and organizational requirements).

Promulgating changes in plans and modifying mission and forces as

necessary.

Ensuring administrative and logistic support.

Recommending to higher authority which organizations should be responsible

for funding various aspects of the JTF.

Establishing or assisting in establishing liaison with US embassies and

foreign governments involved in the operation.

Determining supporting force requirements.

Preparing a directive that indicates the purpose, in terms of desired effect, and

the scope of action required. The directive establishes the support

relationships with amplifying instructions (e.g., strength to be allocated to the

supporting mission; time, place, and duration of the support; priority of the

supporting mission; and authority for the cessation of support).

Approving CJTF plans.

Delegating the directive authority for common support capabilities (if

required).

JOINT TASK FORCE ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY

RESPONSIBILITIES
III-14

Chapter III

JP 3-08

For additional information on the JCMOTF, refer to JP 3-57, Joint Doctrine for Civil-Military

Operations.

c. JTF Attributes. The JTF organization resembles traditional military organizations with

a commander, command element, and the forces required to execute the mission. The JTF

concept provides for organizational flexibility, is task organized, reflects the mission’s

requirements and the unique and necessary capabilities of the Service and functional components,

and provides for the phased introduction of forces and the rapid deployment of personnel and

equipment. A JTF is normally designated when the mission has a specific limited objective and

does not require overall centralized control of logistics. The mission assigned to a JTF will

require not only the execution of responsibilities involving two or more Military

Departments but, increasingly, the mutual support of numerous US agencies, and

collaboration with IGOs and NGOs. Normally, a JTF is dissolved when the purpose for

which it was created has been achieved. The JTF HQ commands and controls the joint force and

coordinates military operations with the activities of other government agencies, MNFs, IGOs,

NGOs, and the HN forces and agencies.

d. JTFs in the Interagency, IGO, and NGO Process. Unlike the military, most USG

agencies and NGOs are not equipped and organized to create separate staffs at the strategic,

operational, and tactical levels, with the result that JTF personnel interface with individuals who

are coordinating their organization’s activities at more than one level. The interagency, IGO,

and NGO process requires the JTF HQ to be especially flexible, responsive, and cognizant of

the capabilities of US agencies, IGOs, the HN, and NGOs. During CCOs, the JTF HQ provide

an important basis for a unified effort, centralized planning and direction, and decentralized

execution. Depending on the type of contingency operation, the extent of military operations,

and degree of interagency, IGO, and NGO involvement, the focal point for operationaland tactical-level coordination with civilian agencies may occur at the JTF HQ, the CMOC,

or the HOC. JTF personnel may also participate actively or as observers in a civilian-led

functional coordinating group concentrating on a specific issue or project.

For further guidance on the forming and composition of a JTF, refer to JP 5-00.2, Joint Task

Force Planning Guidance and Procedures.

5. Joint Task Force Mission Analysis

a. Assessment Team. A valuable tool in the mission analysis process is the deployment of

a JTF assessment team to the projected JOA. The purpose of the assessment team is to establish

liaison with the ambassador or COM, country team, HN, and, if present, multinational members,

UN representatives, and IGO and NGO representatives. The JTF assessment team is similar

in composition to the HAST and, if provided early warning of pending operations, may be

able to conduct assessment in association with the HAST. The CJTF determines the

composition of the assessment team and should include staff members who are subject matter

experts and representatives from Service and functional components expected to participate in

the actual operation. USG agency representation may include the USAID/OFDA DART for

purposes of FHA operations. Special operations force personnel who possess necessary cultural,
III-15

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

language, and technical skills may be included. The assessment team may also assist in clarifying

the mission and determining force requirements and force deployment sequences for the JTF.

b. Coordinated Operations. Operations by other USG agencies, the equivalent agencies

of other national governments, IGOs and NGOs, in concert with or supplementing those of host

country entities, will normally be in progress when US forces arrive in a JOA.

c. Priority Task. This may be a military action, a humanitarian task, or a combination of

both. In certain situations, interagency, IGO, and NGO coordination must be a top priority

of the CJTF. It is especially important to not allow the situation to deteriorate.

d. Regional Strategy. In further analyzing the mission, consider how the regional strategy

will affect joint force planning and operations in the projected JOA. The NSC, DOS, and

the combatant commander will provide the regional strategy and an appreciation for how the

regional strategy affects the countries involved in projected operations. A well-defined regional

strategy will legitimize the military mission and assist in determining force requirements and

defining the end state.

e. Political Considerations. The assessment team should include sufficient expertise to

realistically evaluate the political situation. The JFC should quickly establish a relationship

with the US ambassador, the country team, and other US agency representatives in country.

To the extent that other USG agencies are not present, consideration should be given to placing

representatives of relevant USG agencies on the assessment team.

Clear goals and the personnel required to complete them are vital to progress

and good host-nation relations.
III-16

Chapter III

JP 3-08

(1) Situation permitting, the JFC and key staff members should meet with the regional

and functional elements of the US agencies involved, the Joint Staff, and embassies of the

nations involved. Establishing an effective working relationship with the US ambassador to the

HN will help in any foreign endeavor. Each US mission, as well as the various State Department

geographic and functional bureaus involved, will likely bring different concerns to light.

(2) Information-sharing relationships between the JTF, local and national authorities, the country

team, USG agencies, IGOs, and NGOs must be established at the earliest stages of planning. One of

the most important ways to facilitate mutually beneficial information exchange with non-USG agencies is

to establish clear guidelines to avoid over-classification of information and to declassify information as

early as operational conditions permit. Commanders should consider local and organizational

sensitivities to information-gathering activities by joint forces — especially those that may be

interpreted as ‘intelligence collection.’ Additionally, commanders may consider providing

communication equipment to IGOs and NGOs to allow for better information sharing.

f. JTF HQ. The location of the JTF HQ, whether afloat or ashore, is important. Not only

should it be defensible, it should be geographically positioned to work with the HN political

and private sectors, relief organizations, the media, and MNFs, if present. Proximity to the

American embassy or US diplomatic mission may enhance interagency, IGO, and NGO

coordination. The JTF HQ requires a sufficient power supply and communication lines to

support operations and should provide a secure site for storage of classified information.

6. Organizational Tools for the Joint Task Force

a. The CJTF should consider the establishment of C2 structures that take account of

and provide coherence to the activities of all elements in the JOA. In addition to military

operations, these structures should include the political, civil, administrative, legal, and

humanitarian elements as well as IGOs, NGOs, and the media. The CJTF should ultimately

consider how joint force actions and those of engaged organizations contribute toward the desired

end state. This consideration requires extensive liaison with all involved parties as well as

reliable communications. An assessment team’s mission analysis will assist the CJTF in the

establishment of an executive steering group (ESG), CMOC, and liaison teams (see Figure

III-2).

b. Executive Steering Group. The ESG is composed of senior military representatives

from the JTF, principals of the embassy, the HN, IGOs, and NGOs present in the JOA. It

is the high-level outlet for the exchange of information about operational policies and for resolution

of difficulties arising among the various organizations. The ESG is charged with interpreting

and coordinating strategic policy as defined by the POLMIL plan or other agreed POLMIL

policy objectives. The ESG should either be co-chaired by the CJTF and ambassador or assigned

outright to either individual, depending on the nature of the US mission. A commander at any

echelon may establish an ESG to serve as a conduit through which to provide information and

policy guidance to engaged agencies.
III-17

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

“Our relations with the UN/NGO community was furthered greatly by the

operations of our three Civil-Military Operations Cells (CMOCs). A CMOC

gives a deployed commander great flexibility. At Entebbe the CMOC became

essentially a part of the JTF staff: in Kigali, the CMOC was a separate

command, and in Goma it was a part of the JTF staff once more. A CMOC

gives a US unit an invaluable asset in opening relations with the relief

community, which, at least in our experience, is extensive. Parts of the

NGOs, notably the World Food Program and the International Community

of the Red Cross (and others) are well organized and experienced in working

in this kind of environment. A CMOC gives the JTF commander the capability

to coordinate and work with these agencies.”

SOURCE: Operation Support Hope 1994 After Action Report

Headquarters, United States European Command

c. Civil-Military Coordination Board. This board is the CJTF’s vehicle for coordinating

civil-military support. Membership is typically restricted to key representatives from the JTF

staff sections involved in CMO. Under certain conditions, the CJTF may include representatives

from key IGOs and NGOs.

d. Civil-Military Operations Center. The ability of the JTF to work with all organizations

and groups is essential to mission accomplishment. A relationship must be developed between

military forces, USG agencies, civilian authorities, IGOs, NGOs, and the population.

(1) A CMOC is formed to:

(a) Carry out guidance and institute JFC decisions regarding CMO.

(b) Perform liaison and coordination between military organizations and other

agencies, departments, and organizations to meet the needs of the populace.

(c) Provide a partnership forum for military and other participating organizations. Many

of these organizations consider the CMOC merely as a venue for informal discussions.

(d) Receive, validate, and coordinate requests for routine and emergency military

support from the IGOs and NGOs. Forward these requests to the joint force HQ for action.

(2) CMOCs are tailored for each mission. When a CMOC is established, the CJTF

should invite representatives of other agencies, which may include the following:

(a) USAID/OFDA representatives.

(b) DOS, country team, and other USG representatives.

(c) Military liaison personnel from participating countries.
III-18

Chapter III

JP 3-08

(d) Host country or local government agency representatives.

(e) Representatives of IGOs and NGOs.

(3) The CMOC is the way US forces generally organize for this purpose (see Figure

III-5). Despite its name, the CMOC is a coordinating body and generally neither sets policy nor

conducts operations. The organization of the CMOC is theater- and mission-dependent —

flexible in size and composition. During large scale FHA operations, if a HOC is formed by the

host country or UN, the CMOC becomes the focal point for coordination between the military

and civilian agencies involved in the operation. When possible, the CMOC should collocate

with the HOC to facilitate operations and assist in later transition of any CMOC operations to

the HOC. A commander at any echelon may establish a CMOC to facilitate coordination with

other agencies, departments, organizations, and the HN. More than one CMOC may be established

in an AOR or JOA (such as occurred in Rwanda), and each is task-organized based on the

mission.

(4) During Operation SUPPORT HOPE in Rwanda, the UN deployed an organization

called the On-Site Operations Coordination Center, which had essentially the same functions as

a CMOC and provided a clearinghouse for exchanging information between agencies and with

the UN.

Figure III-5. Notional Composition of a Civil-Military Operations Center

UNICEF

World Food

Programme

Department of

Peacekeeping

Operations

High

Commissioner

for Refugees

Other UN

Agencies

CMOC

UN

MILITARY

NGOs

Red

Cross

USG

AGENCIES

OFDA/DART

Country Team

CARE

Doctors of the

World

Save the

Children

International

Rescue

Committee

Other Relief &

Benefit

Organizations

OFDA

UN

UNICEF

USG

CMOC

DART

ICRC

NGOs

Civil-Military Operations Center

Nongovernmental Organizations

Disaster Assistance Response Team

International Committee of the Red Cross

Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance

United Nations

United Nations Children’s Fund

United States Government

American Red Cross

ICRC

Other Red Cross

Bodies

NOTIONAL COMPOSITION OF A CIVIL-MILITARY

OPERATIONS CENTER
III-19

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

(5) The CJTF must carefully consider where to locate the CMOC. Security, FP,

and easy access for agencies and organizations are all valid considerations. The location must

be distinct and separate from the joint force operations center, regardless if geographically

collocated. If security conditions permit, every effort should be made to locate the CMOC

“outside the wire” in order to maximize participation by IGOs and NGOs that want to minimize

the appearance of close association with military operations.

(6) Political representatives in the CMOC may provide the CJTF with avenues

to satisfy operational considerations and concerns, resulting in consistency of military and

political actions. Additionally, the CMOC forum appeals to NGOs because it avoids guesswork

by providing these organizations a single point of coordination with the military for their needs.

(a) To obtain the necessary interagency, IGO, and NGO coordination and

international cooperation needed to meet mission objectives, CMOC players must rely upon

trust, shared visions, common interests, and capabilities.

(b) A JFC cannot dictate cooperation among engaged agencies. However,

working together at the CMOC on issues of security, logistic support, information sharing,

communications, and other items, can build a cooperative spirit among all participants.

CMOC IN PROVIDE COMFORT

Humanitarian relief organizations operating in southern Turkey and northern

Iraq coordinated their activities with those of the JTF through the CMOC.

The CMOC was collocated with the Humanitarian Operations Center (HOC)

that coordinated the activities of the UN and other humanitarian relief

organizations. The CMOC was coequal with the traditional J-staff sections.

CMOC military officers coordinated activities with both State Department

officials and relief workers. The CMOC in Turkey demonstrated the efficiency

and effectiveness of the concept. It provided a focal point for coordination

of common civil-military needs and competing demands for services and

infrastructure, rather than relying on random encounters between relief

workers and staff officers.

SOURCE: Operations Other Than War, Vol. 1, Humanitarian Assistance,

Center for Army Lessons Learned, December 1992

(7) A CMOC conducts meetings as required to highlight requirements — especially

humanitarian requirements of the population — and to identify organizations able and willing to

meet these needs. Validated requests go to the appropriate JTF or agency representative for

action. Figure III-6 depicts some of the CMOC functions.

For further guidance on CMOC, refer to JP 3-57, Joint Doctrine for Civil-Military Operations.
III-20

Chapter III

JP 3-08

(8) Liaison Teams. Once established in the JOA and operating primarily from the CMOC,

or HOC, if established, liaison teams work to foster a better understanding of mission and tactics with

other forces, facilitate transfer of vital information, enhance mutual trust, and develop an increased level

of teamwork.

(a) Liaison is an important aspect of joint force C2. Liaison teams or individuals

may be dispatched from higher to lower, lower to higher, laterally, or any combination of these.

In multinational operations, liaison exchange should occur between senior and subordinate

commands and between lateral or like forces.

“Instead of thinking about warfighting agencies like command and control, you

create a political committee, a civil-military operations center — CMOC — to

interface with volunteer organizations. These become the heart of your operations,

as opposed to a combat or fire support operations center.”

General A. C. Zinni, USMC

Commander, US Central Command

(b) The need for effective liaison is vital when a JTF is deployed and operating

in a CCO in conjunction with MNFs. The likelihood that a JTF may operate with not only

Figure III-6. Civil-Military Operations Center Functions

CIVIL-MILITARY OPERATIONS CENTER FUNCTIONS

Providing nonmilitary agencies with a coordinating point and information

exchange for activities and matters that are civilian-related.

Coordinating relief activities with US and/or multinational commands,

United Nations, host-nation, and other nonmilitary agencies.

Providing interface with State Department public affairs officers, US

Agency for International Development (USAID), and the country team.

Assisting in the transfer of operational responsibility to nonmilitary

agencies.

Facilitating and coordinating activities of the joint force, other on-scene

agencies, and higher echelons in the military chain of command.

Receiving, validating, coordinating, and monitoring requests from

humanitarian organizations for routine and emergency military support.

Coordinating the response to requests for military support with Service

components.

Coordinating requests to nonmilitary agencies for their support.

Coordinating with disaster assistance response teams deployed by

USAID/Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance.

Convening ad hoc mission planning groups to address complex military

missions that support nonmilitary requirements, such as convoy escort,

and management and security of refugee camps and feeding centers.

Convening follow-on assessment groups.
III-21

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

traditional allies, but also with nations with whom the US does not have a long history of formal military

cooperation, requires the CJTF to plan for increased liaison and advisory requirements.

(c) Qualifications of a JTF LNO assigned to a national or multinational operation

include a solid knowledge of doctrine, force capabilities, language proficiency, regional expertise, and

cultural awareness. Civil affairs or coalition support teams may be available to serve as LNOs. The use

of contracted interpreters to augment a liaison team may be another option.

(9) Humanitarian Operations Center. During large-scale FHA operations, when

it becomes apparent that the magnitude of a disaster will exceed a HN’s capacity to manage it

unilaterally, the HN may want to establish a HOC to facilitate the coordination of

international aid.

(a) Although the functions of the HOC and CMOC are similar, there is a

significant difference. The CMOC is established by and works for the CJTF. The HOC is

normally established under the direction of the government of the affected country or the UN, or

possibly OFDA during a US unilateral operation. HOCs, especially those established by the

UN, are horizontally structured organizations with no command or control authority, where all

members are ultimately responsible to their own organizations or countries. The US ambassador

or designated representative will have a lead role in the HOC.

(b) The HOC membership should consist of representatives from the affected

country, the US embassy or consulate, joint force (most likely from the CMOC), OFDA, UN,

IGOs, NGOs, and any other major players.

(c) The HOC coordinates the overall US relief strategy, identifies logistic

requirements for the various organizations, and identifies, prioritizes and submits requests for

military support to appropriate agencies. Requests for military support may be submitted to the

JTF through the CMOC.

(d) An end state goal of the HOC should be to create an environment in which the

HN is self-sufficient in providing for the population’s humanitarian needs, and no longer requires

external assistance.

For further information on HOC, refer to JP 3-07.6, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures

for Foreign Humanitarian Assistance.

7. Other Joint Task Force Interagency Considerations

a. Intelligence Gathering and Control. Intelligence support provides the JFC with a timely,

complete, and accurate understanding of the environment and potential adversaries.

(1) The combatant command’s staff, if required, should request a national intelligence support

team (NIST) to support the JTF during a crisis or contingency operation. NIST is a nationally

sourced team composed of intelligence and communications experts from Defense Intelligence
III-22

Chapter III

JP 3-08

Agency, CIA, National Security Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and other

intelligence community agencies as required. The interagency, IGO, and NGO support provided

by a NIST allows JTF access to national-level databases and to agency-unique information and analysis.

(2) The method for collecting intelligence during a CCO is generally the same as that

for any other military operation and is conducted in accordance with JP 2-01, Joint and National

Intelligence Support to Military Operations. Managing the intelligence collection, analysis,

production, and dissemination for a JTF may be complicated by non-USG civilians, especially

members of IGOs and NGOs, who may be sensitive to the perception that they are being

used to gather intelligence. This sensitivity may be based on the viewpoint that intelligence

gathering is a provocative act and damages an individual’s claim to impartiality. However,

general information provided by personnel from IGOs and NGOs may corroborate intelligence

gained from other sources. Generally, the best approach to information sharing with the NGOs

and international civilian community is to keep the focus on complete transparency in sharing

operational information and developing a shared situational awareness and understanding of the

objectives to achieve the mission. However, classified information will only be shared with or

released to individuals with the appropriate security clearance and need to know.

(3) Procedures for control and disclosure of classified information, as practiced by

DOD and other USG agencies, normally do not exist with IGOs and NGOs. Under United

States Code, it is unlawful to disclose classified information to foreign governments without

proper authorization. Classified military information shall not be disclosed to foreign nationals

until the appropriate designated disclosure authority receives a security assurance from the

recipient foreign government on the individuals who are to receive the information. Guidance

for the disclosure of classified military information to foreign governments and international

organizations is contained in DODD 5230.11, Disclosure of Classified Military Information to

Foreign Governments and International Organizations.

(a) In most multinational operations, the JFC will be required to share intelligence

with foreign military forces and to coordinate the receipt of intelligence from those forces.

Release procedures should be established in advance, and the JFC participating in the coalition

or alliance must tailor the policy and procedures for that particular operation based on national

and theater guidance.

(b) Consideration must also be given to control of sensitive or classified

information in fora such as the CMOC that include representatives of non-USG agencies.

b. Force Protection. FP planning considerations during complex contingency and

multinational operations are similar to US-only operations. However, because of the specifics

of the operation or area, the multinational nature of the operation, and the nonmilitary organizations

operating in an operational area, there are certain aspects of FP that the CJTF must consider.

(1) Other nations do not necessarily execute FP in the same manner as the US

military. If a joint force is under the OPCON of a multinational or coalition force, the JFC must

still implement the appropriate force protection measures in accordance with combatant

commander directives.
III-23

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

(2) Special measures may be required for joint force personnel who must interact

with local populations and NGOs. Unfamiliar procedures, lack of a common language, and

differing operational terms of reference increase the risk to these joint force personnel.

(3) Because US forces often assume the leadership role in multinational operations,

joint force personnel can potentially be a greater target.

(4) In addition to actions taken to prevent or mitigate hostile actions against the joint

force, the JFC may provide security for other personnel and assets. These requirements

must be clearly stated in the mission, to include protection of:

(a) Personnel and equipment belonging to USG agencies, IGOs, and NGOs.

(b) Affected country personnel and assets.

(c) Relief convoys, supplies, and main supply routes.

(d) Relief distribution centers.

(e) Stocks of supplies.

(f) Ports and airfields.

For further information on FP, refer to JP 3-07.2, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for

Antiterrorism.

c. Logistic Support. Logistic requirements and resource availability coordination are

vital to sustain a joint force operation.

(1) The US military has unique logistic capabilities that are relevant to CCOs.

These include the rapid capability to plan, deploy, employ and redeploy; a robust C2 capability;

a sustained logistic capability, and security throughout operations. US agencies, the UN, IGOs,

NGOs, and MNFs provide for their own logistic support. However, US military logistic

capabilities are frequently requested and provided to these organizations. The JTF may be

asked to assume all or part of the burden of logistics for these organizations after arrival.

This support may include intertheater and intratheater airlift, ground transportation of personnel,

equipment and supplies, airfield control groups, and port and railhead operations groups.

(2) Unity of effort is essential to coordinate logistic operations in joint and multinational

environments, requiring coordination not only between Services and US agencies, but also among

all relief and humanitarian organizations in theater. The JTF must establish movement priorities

between JTF requirements and those of other USG agencies, the country team, coalition

or UN forces, NGOs, and any international joint logistic center, e.g., United Nations Joint

Logistic Center, that may be established. The joint movement center is the primary organization
III-24

Chapter III

JP 3-08

for coordinating movements, including that provided by HNs or MNFs, to support joint operations in

theater. Close communications should be established with all elements to ensure that their movement

requirements are fully understood by the JTF to enable effective planning and security for materiel

movement.

(3) Normally, joint forces are supported through a combination of scheduled US

resupply, contingency contracting, HN support, and UN logistic support.

(4) When joint forces participate in a UN operation, many of the costs incurred by the

US are reimbursable by the UN.

(5) In a multinational, non-UN sponsored operation, a single nation may be responsible

for planning and coordinating logistic support for all forces on a reimbursable basis.

d. Meteorological and Oceanographic (METOC) Support. The JFC must have access

to accurate advance knowledge of METOC conditions to successfully conduct military operations.

The effective understanding of meteorology and oceanography and the application of that

knowledge could contribute significantly to the success of a JTF mission.

e. Legal Issues. Legal services are provided to the JFC and staff by the SJA. The SJA

should possess a comprehensive understanding of the regulations and laws applicable to military

forces and other agencies, both governmental and nongovernmental, domestic and international,

and be a POC with IGOs and NGOs, a negotiator with foreign officials, and a draftsman for

command policies, orders, and international agreements. The SJA must be an active participant

in the interagency mechanisms to obtain the firsthand knowledge necessary to identify

and resolve interagency and multinational legal issues involving:

(1) Legal authority for US military and USG agency participation and support.

(2) International law.

(a) Dislocated civilians, refugees, immunity and asylum, arrests and detentions.

(b) War crimes, status-of-forces agreements, law of armed conflict, military justice

system, Geneva Conventions.

(c) Environmental law.

(3) Intelligence oversight.

(4) Disaster relief and claims.

(5) Contract and fiscal law.

(6) Rules of engagement and rules for use of force.
III-25

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

(7) Authorization for, and limitations on, use of military forces to support civilian authorities.

f. Public Affairs and Media Support. It is essential that all agencies of the USG work

toward a common goal during CCOs by speaking with one voice and sending a consistent

message to the audience. At the national level, OASD(PA) interfaces with USG agencies in the

NSC/DC and passes the information down through PA guidance.

(1) At the theater level, PA planning in a CCO or multinational operation includes

coordination with USG agencies, NGOs, the ambassador, the country team (particularly the

embassy public affairs officer), the HN, national and international media, and media elements of

member forces. It is essential that a public affairs and media plan be in place before the operation

begins and integrated into the overall OPLAN. The joint information bureau (JIB) is the

focal point for the interface between the military and the media. When a JIB is established

by the JFC to promote coordination and responsiveness, it is often appropriate to include

representatives from the aforementioned organizations. The JFC’s PAO plays a major role in

keeping USG agencies and NGOs informed on the capability and intent of the joint force.

(2) In the NATO or multinational environment, media consideration will be channeled

through JIB equivalents designated as a press information center, combined information bureau,

allied press information center, or coalition press information center.

8. Information Management

a. All military operations, including CCOs, are information intensive. Other USG agencies,

IGOs, and NGOs on scene are an important source of information that may contribute to

the success of the military operation or transition to a desired end state. However, the

cultures of non-USG organizations, in particular, differ markedly from the military and there

may be a desire on their part to maintain a distance from military activities. By attempting to

accommodate these concerns and sharing useful information and resources, the CJTF can help

encourage active IGO and NGO cooperation in resolving the crisis. Locally-stationed IGO and

NGO personnel are usually well-qualified individuals who understand the local culture and

practices and have a comprehensive understanding of the needs of the people. The relief

community is an important source of information regarding the following:

(1) Historical perspective and insights into factors contributing to the situation at hand.

(2) Local cultural practices that will bear on the relationship of military forces to the

populace.

(3) Local political structure, political aims of various parties, and the roles of key

leaders.

(4) Security situation.

(5) Role and capabilities of the host-nation government.
III-26

Chapter III

JP 3-08

THE INTERAGENCY BATTLEFIELD

The simulated conflict area was dotted with soldiers, civilians, and

representatives from the same nongovernmental organizations that we have

seen in Somalia and Bosnia. Representatives from the International Red

Cross, Save the Children, the United Nations Department of Humanitarian

Affairs, a USAID Disaster Assistance Relief Team, CARE, World Vision, media

representatives, and others all went to Fort Polk, Louisiana. They were

there to work with us, to simulate their roles in these kinds of operations,

and to learn with us how we all can accomplish our missions as part of a

team.

SOURCE: Observations from August 1994 Joint Readiness Training

Center rotation of 25th Infantry Division (Light) in which a variety of

agencies participated. General Gordon R. Sullivan and Andrew B.

Twomey, The Challenges of Peace, (Parameters, US Army War

College Quarterly, Autumn edition, 1994)

b. This kind of information is frequently not available through military channels. Therefore,

it is important to not compromise the neutrality of the IGOs and NGOs and to avoid the

perception by their workers that their organizations are part of an intelligence gathering

mechanism. Handled improperly, the relief community can be alienated by a perception that,

contrary to its philosophical ideals, it is considered no more than an intelligence source by the

military.

9. Training and Readiness

“It is imperative that our Joint Forces also enhance their ability to operate in

consonance with other US Government agencies, and with nongovernmental

organizations (NGO) [and] international organizations (IO) . . . in a variety of

settings. The specialized access and knowledge these organizations possess

can facilitate prompt, efficient action to prevent conflict, resolve a crisis, mitigate

suffering, and restore civil government upon conflict termination. Achieving

interagency and civil interoperability through the continuing development of our

doctrine and interagency participation in our training exercises is important to the

unity of effort upon which success in many missions depends.”

National Military Strategy, 1997

a. While numerous humanitarian and complex crises during the previous several years have provided

opportunities for military and civilian agencies to exercise their mission skills, there is a clear requirement

for continuous integrated interagency, IGO, and NGO planning and training in order to

synchronize all components of a US response to a CCO. Interagency, IGO, and NGO training

should provide for individual military and civilian instruction, military unit and civilian agency instruction,

and combined military and civilian agency training in a formal joint program.
III-27

Organizing for Successful Interagency, Intergovernmental Organization,

and Nongovernmental Organization Coordination

b. Combatant commanders should schedule interagency, IGO, and NGO coordination

training as a part of routine training and exercise participation and as training for a specific CCO. The

training audience should include members of the HACC, CMOC, logistics operations center, the liaison

section, NGOs, the UN, and USG agencies. This training before deployment will greatly enhance

operational capability. Commanders may also avail their commands to the training offered by some

government agencies, IGOs, and the FHA community. Interagency, IGO, and NGO training should

focus on identifying and assessing military and agency capabilities and core competencies, and identifying

procedural disconnects.

c. USAID is the USG agency that maintains the most direct relationship with NGOs, many

of which receive USAID funding to carry out programs. First, it maintains an Advisory Committee

of Private Voluntary Aid, established after WWII by Presidential directive to serve as a link

between the USG and NGOs engaged in economic development or relief efforts. Also, with

some exceptions, most NGOs must register to receive USAID funding to assure they meet

certain standards; currently 514 US and 62 international NGOs are registered with USAID.

d. Interagency, IGO, and NGO coordination is also available to US NGOs through a

consortium called InterAction which helps represent NGO interests at the national level.

InterAction coordinates with various USG agencies and involves NGOs in realistic PO simulation

conducted by the Joint Readiness Training Center. The military and participating NGOs benefit

from this training by gaining a better understanding of each organization’s culture, capabilities,

and procedures. InterAction has also briefed civil affairs units and US military schools to improve

their understanding of NGO activities.

e. Increasingly, interagency, IGO, and NGO training is also available through the senior

Service schools (including the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute) and other civilian

institutions. Interagency training is also provided on the job through exchange programs between

DOD and other USG agencies. National Defense University, as directed by the CJCS, is

responsible for providing interagency, IGO, and NGO training for civilian and military personnel

assigned or pending assignment to combatant command joint interagency coordination groups.

f. The United Nations conducts training and education at various levels to improve

the responsiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency of international humanitarian relief operations.

Training is available to leaders of the military, civil defense, and civilian relief organizations, or

for personnel of countries and organizations with no prior experience in international emergency

and disaster response situations. One example is the UN-Civil-Military Cooperation Course

that trains individuals in interagency, IGO, and NGO coordination and how to effectively manage the

employment of military and civilian resources.

g. PDD-56 and its successor NSPD (not yet approved) recommend that a POLMIL

plan be developed as an integrated planning tool for coordinating USG actions in a CCO. The

POLMIL plan will include a situation assessment and will specify the concept of operations for

all agencies, synchronize agency actions, and provide a game plan for individual agencies to follow.

DOD has designated the National Defense University as the lead agent for POLMIL planning education,

training and after-action reviews (AARs) related to complex foreign crises.
III-28

Chapter III

JP 3-08

Intentionally Blank
GLOSSARY

PART I — ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

GL-1

AAR after action review

AOR area of responsibility

ASD(HD) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense)

ASD(RA) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs )

ASD(SO/LIC) Assistant Secretary of Defense (Special Operations and LowIntensity Conflict)

C2 command and control

CAP crisis action planning

CBRNE chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield

explosives

CCO complex contingency operation

CDRNORAD Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command

CDRUSPACOM Commander, United States Pacific Command

CDRUSNORTHCOM Commander, Unites States Northern Command

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CJCS Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

CJTF commander, joint task force

CM consequence management

CMO civil-military operations

CMOC civil-military operations center

COA course of action

COM chief of mission

CONPLAN concept of operations plan

CrM crisis management

CS civil support

DART disaster assistance response team

DATT defense attaché

DCM deputy chief of mission

DCO defense coordinating officer

DFO disaster field office

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

DODD Department of Defense directive

DOJ Department of Justice

DOS Department of State

EPLO emergency preparedness liaison officer

ESG executive steering group

EXECSEC Executive Secretary (OSD)
GL-2

Glossary

JP 3-08

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

FCO federal coordinating officer

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHA foreign humanitarian assistance

FID foreign internal defense

FP force protection

FRERP Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan

FRP Federal response plan (USG)

HACC humanitarian assistance coordination center

HAST humanitarian assistance survey team

HD homeland defense

HN host nation

HOC humanitarian operations center

HQ headquarters

HS homeland security

HSC Homeland Security Council

HSC/PC Homeland Security Council Principals Committee

HSC/PCC Homeland Security Council Policy Coordination Committee

HSPD homeland security Presidential directive

ICS incident command system

IGO intergovernmental organization

IIB interagency information bureau

INRP Initial National Response Plan

IPC interagency planning cell

J-3 operations directorate of a joint staff

J-4 logistics directorate of a joint staff

J-5 plans and policy directorate of a joint staff

JCMOTF joint civil-military operations task force

JFC joint force commander

JIACG joint interagency coordination group

JIB joint information bureau

JOA joint operations area

JP joint publication

JTF joint task force

LEA law enforcement agency

LFA lead federal agency

LNO liaison officer

LRC logistics readiness center
GL-3

Glossary

METOC meteorological and oceanographic

MNF multinational force

MOA memorandum of agreement

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan

NG National Guard

NGO nongovernmental organization

NIMS National Incident Management System

NIST national intelligence support team

NORAD North American Aerospace Defense Command

NRP National Response Plan

NSA national security act

NSC National Security Council

NSC/DC National Security Council/Deputies Committee

NSC/PC National Security Council/Principals Committee

NSC/PCC National Security Council/Policy Coordination Committee

NSCS National Security Council System

NSPD national security Presidential directive

NSS national security strategy

OASD(PA) Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)

OES office of emergency services

OFDA Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance

OPCON operational control

OPLAN operation plan

OSCE Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

PA public affairs

PAO public affairs officer

PDD Presidential decision directive

PERMREP permanent representative

PFO principal federal officer

PO peace operations

POC point of contact

POLAD political advisor

POLMIL political-military

SAO security assistance organization

SCO state coordinating officer

SecDef Secretary of Defense

SJA staff judge advocate

SJFHQ standing joint force headquarters

SYG Secretary General (UN)
UN United Nations

UNDPKO United Nations Department for Peacekeeping Operations

UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian

Affairs

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USCG United States Coast Guard

USDAO United States Defense Attaché Office

USDR United States defense representative

USG United States Government

USNORTHCOM United States Northern Command

WMD weapons of mass destruction

GL-4

Glossary

JP 3-08
antiterrorism. Defensive measures used to reduce the vulnerability of individuals and property to

terrorist acts, to include limited response and containment by local military forces. Also called AT.

(JP 1-02)

chain of command. The succession of commanding officers from a superior to a subordinate

through which command is exercised. Also called command channel. (JP 1-02)

civil affairs. Designated Active and Reserve component forces and units organized, trained,

and equipped specifically to conduct civil affairs activities and to support civil-military

operations. Also called CA. (JP 1-02)

civil affairs activities. Activities performed or supported by civil affairs that (1) enhance the

relationship between military forces and civil authorities in areas where military forces are

present; and (2) involve application of civil affairs functional specialty skills, in areas normally

the responsibility of civil government, to enhance conduct of civil-military operations. (JP

1-02)

civil-military operations. The activities of a commander that establish, maintain, influence, or

exploit relations between military forces, governmental and nongovernmental civilian

organizations and authorities, and the civilian populace in a friendly, neutral, or hostile

operational area in order to facilitate military operations, to consolidate and achieve

operational US objectives. Civil-military operations may include performance by military

forces of activities and functions normally the responsibility of the local, regional, or national

government. These activities may occur prior to, during, or subsequent to other military

actions. They may also occur, if directed, in the absence of other military operations. Civilmilitary operations may be performed by designated civil affairs, by other military forces,

or by a combination of civil affairs and other forces. Also called CMO. (JP 1-02)

civil-military operations center. An ad hoc organization, normally established by the geographic

combatant commander or subordinate joint force commander, to assist in the coordination

of activities of engaged military forces, and other United States Government agencies,

nongovernmental organizations, and regional and intergovernmental organizations. There

is no established structure, and its size and composition are situation dependent. Also

called CMOC. See also civil affairs activities; civil-military operations. (This term and its

definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next

edition of JP 1-02.)

civil support. Department of Defense support to US civil authorities for domestic emergencies, and for

designated law enforcement and other activities. Also called CS. (JP 1-02)

combatant command (command authority). Nontransferable command authority established by

title 10 (“Armed Forces”), United States Code, section 164, exercised only by commanders of

unified or specified combatant commands unless otherwise directed by the President or the Secretary

PART II — TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

GL-5
GL-6

Glossary

JP 3-08

of Defense. Combatant command (command authority) cannot be delegated and is the authority

of a combatant commander to perform those functions of command over assigned forces involving

organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving

authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations, joint training, and logistics necessary

to accomplish the missions assigned to the command. Combatant command (command authority)

should be exercised through the commanders of subordinate organizations. Normally this authority

is exercised through subordinate joint force commanders and Service and/or functional component

commanders. Combatant command (command authority) provides full authority to organize and

employ commands and forces as the combatant commander considers necessary to accomplish

assigned missions. Operational control is inherent in combatant command (command authority).

Also called COCOM. See also combatant commander, operational control. (JP 1-02)

combatant commander. A commander of one of the unified or specified combatant commands

established by the President. (JP 1-02)

combating terrorism. Actions, including antiterrorism (defensive measures taken to reduce

vulnerability to terrorist acts) and counterterrorism (offensive measures taken to prevent,

deter, and respond to terrorism), taken to oppose terrorism throughout the entire threat

spectrum. Also called CBT. (JP 1-02)

combat support. Fire support and operational assistance provided to combat elements. Also

called CS. (JP 1-02)

combined. Between two or more forces or agencies of two or more allies. (When all allies or

services are not involved, the participating nations and services shall be identified, e.g.,

combined navies.) (JP 1-02)

complex contingency operations. Large-scale peace operations (or elements thereof) conducted

by a combination of military forces and nonmilitary organizations that involve one or more

of the elements of peace operations that include one or more elements of other types of

operations such as foreign humanitarian assistance, nation assistance, support to insurgency,

or support to counterinsurgency. Also called CCO. See also peace operations. (This term

and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion

in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

consequence management. Actions taken to maintain or restore essential services and manage and

mitigate problems resulting from disasters and catastrophes, including natural, manmade, or terrorist

incidents. Also called CM. (JP 1-02)

Continental United States Army. A regionally-oriented command with geographic boundaries

under the command of United States Army Forces Command. The Continental United

States Army is a numbered Army and is the Forces Command agent for mobilization,

deployment, and domestic emergency planning and execution. Also called CONUSA.

(This term and its definition are applicable only in the context of this pub and cannot be referenced

outside this publication.)
GL-7

Glossary

counterdrug. Those active measures taken to detect, monitor, and counter the production,

trafficking, and use of illegal drugs. Also called CD. (JP 1-02)

counterintelligence. Information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage,

other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign

governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international

terrorist activities. Also called CI. (JP 1-02)

counterterrorism. Operations that include the offensive measures taken to prevent, deter,

preempt, and respond to terrorism. Also called CT. (JP 1-02)

country team. The senior, in-country, US coordinating and supervising body, headed by the

chief of the US diplomatic mission, and composed of the senior member of each represented

US department or agency, as desired by the chief of the US diplomatic mission. (JP 1-02)

course of action. 1. Any sequence of activities that an individual or unit may follow. 2. A

possible plan open to an individual or commander that would accomplish, or is related to

the accomplishment of the mission. 3. The scheme adopted to accomplish a job or mission.

4. A line of conduct in an engagement. 5. A product of the Joint Operation Planning and

Execution System concept development phase. Also called COA. (JP 1-02)

crisis management. Measures to identify, acquire, and plan the use of resources needed to anticipate,

prevent, and/or resolve a threat or an act of terrorism. It is predominately a law enforcement

response, normally executed under federal law. Also called CrM. (JP 1-02)

developmental assistance. US Agency for International Development function chartered under

chapter one of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, primarily designed to promote economic

growth and the equitable distribution of its benefits. (JP 1-02)

disaster assistance response team. United States Agency for International Development’s

(USAID) Office of United States Foreign Disaster Assistance provides this rapidly deployable

team in response to international disasters. A disaster assistance response team provides

specialists, trained in a variety of disaster relief skills, to assist US embassies and USAID

missions with the management of US Government response to disasters. Also called DART.

(JP 1-02)

displaced person. A civilian who is involuntarily outside the national boundaries of his or her

country. See also refugee. (JP 1-02)

doctrine. Fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in

support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application. (JP 1-02)

domestic emergencies. Emergencies affecting the public welfare and occurring within the 50 states,

District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, US possessions and territories, or any
GL-8

Glossary

JP 3-08

political subdivision thereof, as a result of enemy attack, insurrection, civil disturbance, earthquake,

fire, flood, or other public disasters or equivalent emergencies that endanger life and property or

disrupt the usual process of government. The term “domestic emergencies” includes any or all of

the emergency conditions defined below: a. civil defense emergency — A domestic emergency

disaster situation resulting from devastation created by an enemy attack and requiring emergency

operations during and following that attack. It may be proclaimed by appropriate authority in

anticipation of an attack. b. civil disturbances — Riots, acts of violence, insurrections, unlawful

obstructions or assemblages, or other disorders prejudicial to public law and order. The term civil

disturbance includes all domestic conditions requiring or likely to require the use of Federal Armed

Forces pursuant to the provisions of 10, USC 15. c. major disaster — Any flood, fire, hurricane,

tornado, earthquake, or other catastrophe which, in the determination of the President, is or threatens

to be of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant disaster assistance by the Federal Government

under Public Law 606, 91st Congress (42 USC 58) to supplement the efforts and available

resources of State and local governments in alleviating the damage, hardship, or suffering caused

thereby. d. natural disaster — All domestic emergencies except those created as a result of enemy

attack or civil disturbance. (JP 1-02)

end state. The set of required conditions that defines achievement of the commander’s objectives.

(JP 1-02)

federal coordinating officer. Appointed by the Director of the Federal Emergency Management

Agency, on behalf of the President, to coordinate federal assistance to a state affected by a

disaster or emergency. The source and level of the federal coordinating officer will likely

depend on the nature of the federal response. Also called FCO. (JP 1-02)

force protection. Actions taken to prevent or mitigate hostile actions against Department of

Defense personnel (to include family members), resources, facilities, and critical information.

These actions conserve the force’s fighting potential so it can be applied at the decisive time

and place and incorporate the coordinated and synchronized offensive and defensive measures

to enable the effective employment of the joint force while degrading opportunities for the

enemy. Force protection does not include actions to defeat the enemy or protect against

accidents, weather, or disease. Also called FP. (JP 1-02)

foreign assistance. Assistance to foreign nations ranging from the sale of military equipment to

donations of food and medical supplies to aid survivors of natural and manmade disasters;

US assistance takes three forms — development assistance, humanitarian assistance, and

security assistance. See also foreign disaster; foreign humanitarian assistance; security

assistance. (JP 1-02)

foreign disaster. An act of nature (such as a flood, drought, fire, hurricane, earthquake, volcanic

eruption, or epidemic), or an act of man (such as a riot, violence, civil strife, explosion, fire,

or epidemic), which is or threatens to be of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant

United States foreign disaster relief to a foreign country, foreign persons, or to an

intergovernmental organization. See also foreign disaster relief. (This term and its definition modify

the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)
GL-9

Glossary

foreign disaster relief. Prompt aid that can be used to alleviate the suffering of foreign disaster victims.

Normally it includes humanitarian services and transportation; the provision of food, clothing,

medicine, beds, and bedding; temporary shelter and housing; the furnishing of medical materiel,

and medical and technical personnel; and making repairs to essential services. See also foreign

disaster. (JP 1-02)

foreign humanitarian assistance. Programs conducted to relieve or reduce the results of natural

or manmade disasters or other endemic conditions such as human pain, disease, hunger, or

privation that might present a serious threat to life or that can result in great damage to or

loss of property. Foreign humanitarian assistance (FHA) provided by US forces is limited

in scope and duration. The foreign assistance provided is designed to supplement or

complement the efforts of the host nation civil authorities or agencies that may have the

primary responsibility for providing FHA. FHA operations are those conducted outside the

United States, its territories, and possessions. Also called FHA. See also foreign assistance.

(JP 1-02)

foreign internal defense. Participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in

any of the action programs taken by another government or other designated organization

to free and protect its society from subversion, lawlessness, and insurgency. Also called

FID. (JP 1-02)

host nation. A nation that receives the forces and/or supplies of allied nations, coalition partners,

and/or NATO organizations to be located on, to operate in, or to transit through its territory.

Also called HN. (JP 1-02)

host-nation support. Civil and/or military assistance rendered by a nation to foreign forces

within its territory during peacetime, crises or emergencies, or war, based on agreements

mutually concluded between nations. Also called HNS. (JP 1-02)

humanitarian and civic assistance. Assistance to the local populace provided by predominantly

US forces in conjunction with military operations and exercises. This assistance is specifically

authorized by title 10, United States Code, section 401, and funded under separate authorities.

Assistance provided under these provisions is limited to (1) medical, dental, and veterinary

care provided in rural areas of a country; (2) construction of rudimentary surface transportation

systems; (3) well drilling and construction of basic sanitation facilities; and (4) rudimentary construction

and repair of public facilities. Assistance must fulfill unit training requirements that incidentally create

humanitarian benefit to the local populace. Also called HCA. (JP 1-02)

humanitarian operations center. An interagency policymaking body that coordinates the overall

relief strategy and unity of effort among all participants in a large foreign humanitarian assistance

operation. It normally is established under the direction of the government of the affected country

or the United Nations, or a United States Government agency during a United States unilateral

operation. The humanitarian operations center should consist of representatives from the affected

country, the United States Embassy or Consulate, the joint force, the United Nations,
GL-10

Glossary

JP 3-08

nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations, and other major players in the operation.

Also called HOC. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are

approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

intelligence. 1. The product resulting from the collection, processing, integration, analysis,

evaluation, and interpretation of available information concerning foreign countries or areas.

2. Information and knowledge about an adversary obtained through observation,

investigation, analysis, or understanding. (JP 1-02)

interagency. United States Government agencies and departments, including the Department of

Defense. (Approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

interagency coordination. The coordination that occurs between agencies of the US Government,

including the Department of Defense, for the purpose of accomplishing an objective. See also

intergovernmental organization; nongovernmental organization. (This term and its definition modify

the existing term and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

intergovernmental organization. An organization created by a formal agreement (e.g., a treaty)

between two or more governments. It may be established on a global, regional, or functional

basis for wide-ranging or narrowly defined purposes. Formed to protect and promote national

interests shared by member states. Examples include the United Nations, North Atlantic

Treaty Organization, and the African Union. Also called IGO. (Approved for inclusion in

the next edition of JP 1-02.)

internal defense and development. The full range of measures taken by a nation to promote its

growth and protect itself from subversion, lawlessness, and insurgency. It focuses on building

viable institutions (political, economic, social, and military) that respond to the needs of

society. Also called IDAD. (JP 1-02)

international organization. None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP 1-02.)

joint force commander. A general term applied to a combatant commander, subunified commander,

or joint task force commander authorized to exercise combatant command (command authority)

or operational control over a joint force. Also called JFC. (JP 1-02)

joint interagency coordination group. An interagency staff group that establishes regular, timely, and

collaborative working relationships between civilian and military operational planners. Composed

of US Government civilian and military experts accredited to the combatant commander and

tailored to meet the requirements of a supported combatant commander, the joint interagency

coordination group provides the combatant commander with the capability to collaborate at the

operational level with other US Government civilian agencies and departments. Also called JIACG.

(Approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)
GL-11

Glossary

joint staff. 1. The staff of a commander of a unified or specified command, subordinate unified

command, joint task force, or subordinate functional component (when a functional component

command will employ forces from more than one Military Department), that includes members

from the several Services comprising the force. These members should be assigned in such a

manner as to ensure that the commander understands the tactics, techniques, capabilities, needs,

and limitations of the component parts of the force. Positions on the staff should be divided so that

Service representation and influence generally reflect the Service composition of the force. 2.

(capitalized as Joint Staff). The staff under the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as provided for

in the National Security Act of 1947, as amended by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense

Reorganization Act of 1986. The Joint Staff assists the Chairman and, subject to the authority,

direction, and control of the Chairman and the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in carrying

out their responsibilities. Also called JS. (JP 1-02)

joint task force. A joint force that is constituted and so designated by the Secretary of Defense,

a combatant commander, a subunified commander, or an existing joint task force commander.

Also called JTF. (JP 1-02)

lead agency. Designated among US Government agencies to coordinate the interagency oversight

of the day-to-day conduct of an ongoing operation. The lead agency is to chair the interagency

working group established to coordinate policy related to a particular operation. The lead

agency determines the agenda, ensures cohesion among the agencies and is responsible for

implementing decisions. (JP 1-02)

letter of assist. A contractual document issued by the United Nations (UN) to a government

authorizing it to provide goods or services to a peacekeeping operation; the UN agrees

either to purchase the goods or services or authorizes the government to supply them subject

to reimbursement by the UN. A letter of assist typically details specifically what is to be

provided by the contributing government and establishes a funding limit that cannot be

exceeded. Also called LOA. See also peacekeeping (JP 1-02)

liaison. That contact or intercommunication maintained between elements of military forces or

other agencies to ensure mutual understanding and unity of purpose and action. (JP 1-02)

logistics. The science of planning and carrying out the movement and maintenance of forces. In its

most comprehensive sense, those aspects of military operations which deal with: a. design and

development, acquisition, storage, movement, distribution, maintenance, evacuation, and disposition

of materiel; b. movement, evacuation, and hospitalization of personnel; c. acquisition or construction,

maintenance, operation, and disposition of facilities; and d. acquisition or furnishing of services.

(JP 1-02)

military civic action. The use of preponderantly indigenous military forces on projects useful to the

local population at all levels in such fields as education, training, public works, agriculture,

transportation, communications, health, sanitation, and others contributing to economic and social
GL-12

Glossary

JP 3-08

development, which would also serve to improve the standing of the military forces with the

population. (US forces may at times advise or engage in military civic actions in overseas areas.)

(JP 1-02)

Military Department. One of the departments within the Department of Defense created by the

National Security Act of 1947, as amended. Also called MILDEP. (JP 1-02)

military options. A range of military force responses that can be projected to accomplish assigned

tasks. Options include one or a combination of the following: civic action, humanitarian assistance,

civil affairs, and other military activities to develop positive relationships with other countries;

confidence building and other measures to reduce military tensions; military presence; activities to

convey threats to adversaries as well as truth projections; military deceptions and psychological

operations; quarantines, blockades, and harassment operations; raids; intervention operations;

armed conflict involving air, land, maritime, and strategic warfare operations; support for law

enforcement authorities to counter international criminal activities (terrorism, narcotics trafficking,

slavery, and piracy); support for law enforcement authorities to suppress domestic rebellion; and

support for insurgency, counterinsurgency, and civil war in foreign countries. See also civil affairs;

foreign humanitarian assistance; military civic action. (JP 1-02)

multinational force. A force composed of military elements of nations who have formed an

alliance or coalition for some specific purpose. Also called MNF. (JP 1-02)

multinational operations. A collective term to describe military actions conducted by forces of two or

more nations, usually undertaken within the structure of a coalition or alliance. (JP 1-02)

nation assistance. Civil and/or military assistance rendered to a nation by foreign forces within

that nation’s territory during peacetime, crises or emergencies, or war, based on agreements

mutually concluded between nations. Nation assistance programs may include, but are not

limited to, security assistance, foreign internal defense, other United States Code title 10

programs, and activities performed on a reimbursable basis by Federal agencies or

intergovernmental organizations. (This term and its definition modify the existing term

and its definition and are approved for inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)

noncombatant evacuation operations. Operations directed by the Department of State, the

Department of Defense, or other appropriate authority whereby noncombatants are evacuated

from foreign countries when their lives are endangered by war, civil unrest, or natural disaster to

safe havens or to the United States. Also called NEOs. (JP 1-02)

nongovernmental organization. A private, self-governing, not-for-profit organization dedicated

to alleviating human suffering; and/or promoting education, health care, economic

development, environmental protection, human rights, and conflict resolution; and/or

encouraging the establishment of democratic institutions and civil society. Also called

NGO. (This term and its definition modify the existing term and its definition and are approved for

inclusion in the next edition of JP 1-02.)
GL-13

Glossary

operational control. Command authority that may be exercised by commanders at any echelon at or

below the level of combatant command. Operational control is inherent in combatant command

(command authority) and may be delegated within the command. When forces are transferred

between combatant commands, the command relationship the gaining commander will exercise

(and the losing commander will relinquish) over these forces must be specified by the Secretary of

Defense. Operational control is the authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate

forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating

objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission. Operational

control includes authoritative direction over all aspects of military operations and joint training

necessary to accomplish missions assigned to the command. Operational control should be exercised

through the commanders of subordinate organizations. Normally this authority is exercised through

subordinate joint force commanders and Service and/or functional component commanders.

Operational control normally provides full authority to organize commands and forces and to

employ those forces as the commander in operational control considers necessary to accomplish

assigned missions; it does not, in and of itself, include authoritative direction for logistics or matters

of administration, discipline, internal organization, or unit training. Also called OPCON. See also

combatant command (command authority). (JP 1-02)

peace enforcement. Application of military force, or the threat of its use, normally pursuant to

international authorization, to compel compliance with resolutions or sanctions designed to

maintain or restore peace and order. (JP 1-02)

peacekeeping. Military operations undertaken with the consent of all major parties to a dispute,

designed to monitor and facilitate implementation of an agreement (ceasefire, truce, or

other such agreement) and support diplomatic efforts to reach a long-term political settlement.

See also peace operations. (JP 1-02)

peace operations. A broad term that encompasses peacekeeping operations and peace

enforcement operations conducted in support of diplomatic efforts to establish and maintain

peace. Also called PO. See also complex contingency operations; peacekeeping. (JP 1-02)

preventive diplomacy. Diplomatic actions taken in advance of a predictable crisis to prevent or limit

violence. (JP 1-02)

psychological operations. Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign

audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately, the behavior of

foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations

is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives.

Also called PSYOP. (JP 1-02)

refugee. A person who, by reason of real or imagined danger, has left their home country or

country of their nationality and is unwilling or unable to return. (JP 1-02)

regional organizations. A sub-type of intergovernmental organization. Regional domestic organizations

can cover a particular administrative area, division, or district. For the purpose of discussion in this
GL-14

Glossary

JP 3-08

text, regional organizations are included with intergovernmental organizations unless specifically

noted as a regional security organizations, e.g., North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (This term and

definition are applicable only in the context of this publication and cannot be referenced outside this

publication.)

rules of engagement. Directives issued by competent military authority that delineate the

circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will initiate and/or continue

combat engagement with other forces encountered. Also called ROE. (JP 1-02)

security assistance. Group of programs authorized by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended,

and the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, as amended, or other related statutes by which the

United States provides defense articles, military training, and other defense-related services by

grant, loan, credit, or cash sales in furtherance of national policies and objectives. Also called SA.

See also foreign assistance. (JP 1-02)

special operations. Operations conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments

to achieve military, diplomatic, informational, and/or economic objectives employing military

capabilities for which there is no broad conventional force requirement. These operations

often require covert, clandestine, or low visibility capabilities. Special operations are

applicable across the range of military operations. They can be conducted independently or

in conjunction with operations of conventional forces or other government agencies and

may include operations through, with, or by indigenous or surrogate forces. Special

operations differ from conventional operations in degree of physical and political risk,

operational techniques, mode of employment, independence from friendly support, and

dependence on detailed operational intelligence and indigenous assets. Also called SO. (JP

1-02)

status-of-forces agreement. An agreement that defines the legal position of a visiting military

force deployed in the territory of a friendly state. Agreements delineating the status of

visiting military forces may be bilateral or multilateral. Provisions pertaining to the status

of visiting forces may be set forth in a separate agreement, or they may form a part of a

more comprehensive agreement. These provisions describe how the authorities of a visiting force

may control members of that force and the amenability of the force or its members to the local law

or to the authority of local officials. To the extent that agreements delineate matters affecting the

relations between a military force and civilian authorities and population, they may be considered

as civil affairs agreements. Also called SOFA. (JP 1-02)

strategy. The art and science of developing and employing instruments of national power in a

synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational

objectives. (JP 1-02)

supported commander. 1. The commander having primary responsibility for all aspects of a

task assigned by the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan or other joint operation planning

authority. In the context of joint operation planning, this term refers to the commander who prepares

operation plans or operation orders in response to requirements of the Chairman of the Joint
GL-15

Glossary

Chiefs of Staff. 2. In the context of a support command relationship, the commander who receives

assistance from another commander’s force or capabilities, and who is responsible for ensuring

that the supporting commander understands the assistance required. (JP 1-02)

supporting commander. 1. A commander who provides augmentation forces or other support

to a supported commander or who develops a supporting plan. Includes the designated

combatant commands and Defense agencies as appropriate. 2. In the context of a support

command relationship, the commander who aids, protects, complements, or sustains another

commander’s force, and who is responsible for providing the assistance required by the

supported commander. (JP 1-02)

unified command. A command with a broad continuing mission under a single commander

and composed of significant assigned components of two or more Military Departments,

that is established and so designated by the President, through the Secretary of Defense

with the advice and assistance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Also called

unified combatant command. (JP 1-02)
GL-16

Glossary

JP 3-08

Intentionally Blank
Assessments/

Revision

CJCS

Approval

Two

Drafts

Program

Directive

Project

Proposal

J-7 formally staffs with

Services and combatant

commands

Includes scope of project,

references, milestones, and

who will develop drafts

J-7 releases Program

Directive to Lead Agent.

Lead Agent can be Service,

combatant command or

Joint Staff (JS) Directorate

STEP #2

Program Directive

The combatant commands receive

the JP and begin to assess it during

use

18 to 24 months following

publication, the Director J-7, will

solicit a written report from the

combatant commands and

Services on the utility and quality of

each JP and the need for any

urgent changes or earlier-thanscheduled revisions

No later than 5 years after

development, each JP is revised

STEP #5

Assessments/Revision



ENHANCED

JOINT

WARFIGHTING

CAPABILITY

Submitted by Services, combatant commands, or

Joint Staff to fill extant operational void

J-7 validates requirement with Services and

combatant commands

J-7 initiates Program Directive

STEP #1

Project Proposal

All joint doctrine and tactics, techniques, and procedures are organized into a comprehensive hierarchy as

shown in the chart above. is in the series of joint doctrine

publications. The diagram below illustrates an overview of the development process:

Joint Publication (JP) 3-08 Operations

JOINT DOCTRINE PUBLICATIONS HIERARCHY JOINT DOCTRINE PUBLICATIONS HIERARCHY

JP 1-0 JP 2-0 JP 3-0

PERSONNEL

JP 4-0 JP 5-0 JP 6-0

INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS LOGISTICS

COMMUNICATIONS

PLANS SYSTEMS

JOINT

DOCTRINE

PUBLICATION

Lead Agent forwards proposed pub to Joint Staff

Joint Staff takes responsibility for pub, makes

required changes and prepares pub for

coordination with Services and combatant

commands

Joint Staff conducts formal staffing for approval

as a JP

STEP #4

CJCS Approval

Lead Agent selects Primary Review Authority

(PRA) to develop the pub

PRA develops two draft pubs

PRA staffs each draft with combatant

commands, Services, and Joint Staff

STEP #3

Two Drafts

JP 1

JOINT

WARFARE

JP 0-2

UNAAF