No Multi-Domain Operations without Interoperability.
Why MDO Will Be More Difficult to Accomplish for European Armies.
While visiting the US Army as part of the Dutch General Staff College, I inquired about how the US Army views MDO as part of the future force. The very concept of MDO originated in the US Armed Forces and has influenced many other armies worldwide.[1] [2] In this post, I will briefly describe how the concept of MDO is interpreted differently, but most importantly, why interoperability is the Achilles' heel of MDO, especially for European armies.
Multi-Domain Operations and Its Multi-Interpretations.
First of all, what is meant by MDO? There are many different definitions, but I will use the following presented by a U.S. Army officer: MDO is the combined arms employment of Joint and Army capacities that create and exploit relative advantages to achieve objectives, defeat enemy forces, and consolidate gains on behalf of the Joint Force Commander.[3] The purpose of MDO is that by collaboration, orchestration, and convergence, armed forces will be able to synchronize effects in all domains (Land, Air, Maritime, Space, and Cyber) to present the enemy with multiple problems or threats in three dimensions: the virtual, cognitive, and physical dimensions. This also includes non-military capabilities and effects. Sometimes, the information environment is also added, which spans across all domains. Figure 2 is a visualization of how MDO ought to be executed within NATO.[4]
In practice, however, I have found that many people interpret the concept and what it is supposed to achieve very differently. Davis Ellison and Tim Sweijs wrote a brilliant article on ‘War on the Rocks’ titled "Empty Promises? A Year Inside the World of Multi-Domain Operations," where they critically assess how the U.S. and NATO employ the concept of MDO.[5] Ellison and Sweijs describe the wide range of different interpretations of MDO: “For some, multi-domain operations is just another step in another revolution in military affairs, with images of missiles and satellites and networks all linked up to destroy an enemy. For others, it is a call for new energy to be put into whole-of-government style integration that can deter everything, everywhere, all the time.” A joke I recently encountered on social media puts it very plainly: "Multi-domain operations is like teenage sex: everyone talks about it, nobody really knows how to do it, everyone thinks everyone else is doing it, so everyone claims they are doing it."[6]
Despite these critiques, I believe there is merit to the concept of MDO. The real question is, what is genuinely new about it? One can claim that in many previous battles, armies already collaborated, orchestrated, and converged effects in different domains. For example, the Germans synchronized Land and Air effects during Operation Fall Gelb in 1940. The only difference now is that we have five domains, with cyber and space being relatively new. One US Army officer stated that, in his opinion, MDO is not exactly new; the current MDO doctrine simply codifies what we already are or should be doing.[7] However, even within the U.S. Army, there seems to be some deviation on the topic. One officer explained that when you use drones, you operate in the air domain. When you fire missile artillery from the land domain towards ships, you achieve effects in the maritime domain. The use of satellite communications allows us to use the space domain. Well, when you put it like that, you are indeed doing Multi-Domain Operations. Yet, I do not think this is the essence of the MDO concept. Operating or creating effects in different domains is not a purpose in itself. The purpose of MDO is to synchronize effects across all domains simultaneously to out-manoeuvre the enemy and impose multiple problems all at once. But to be clear, my interpretation is just one of many interpretations and is therefore also fallible or certainly incomplete.
By Whom?
The all-important question is how to achieve the purpose of MDO as described above. But before answering that question, it is necessary to determine at what level MDO can or ought to be conducted. During my visit to the U.S., I learned that, according to the U.S. Army units I visited, MDO was considered to be best executed and coordinated at the Corps or minimally at the Division level. This is also why the U.S. Army created the Concept for Multi-Domain Combined Arms Operations at Echelon Above Brigade.[8] Some capabilities to create effects, like cyber or space, are not located at the tactical level and are only available at the (strategic) national level. They can be executed in support of tactical levels, but this requires elaborate coordination at higher echelons.
There is much discussion on the level at which MDO ought to and can be employed, especially in European armies like that of the Netherlands. These discussions tend to conflate three different aspects of MDO. The first aspect is about the level that exercises command and control over the Multi-Domain Operation. The second focuses on the units that are (merely) being supported by MDO effects. The third is about tactical units that will actually employ effects within a Multi-Domain Operation. These three different aspects of MDO seem to be conflated when discussing at which level MDO can and ought to be conducted. The result is that some people claim that MDO can even be conducted at the company level, but what they likely mean is that this company simply takes part in MDO by achieving effects in one particular domain. A single fighter jet is not conducting MDO, although it is contributing to the operation. Since the orchestration of effects is crucial to MDO, I will argue that only the level that can execute command and control over the operation and thus can orchestrate, converge, and synchronize effects in more than one domain can conduct MDO. This does not mean that only a certain level can execute Multi-Domain Operations. What is relevant is that this level. Do there need to be more than two domains for it to be genuinely called MDO? I don’t think that is relevant. The lesson of MDO should be that you want to synchronize effects in different domains, preferably at the lowest tactical level possible.
How? It is All About Interoperability.
What is being overlooked is the necessity of interoperability. It is one thing to say you want to orchestrate and synchronize effects of different domains, and a whole other ball game when it comes to having different services, like the Air Force, Navy, or Army, talk to each other, let alone work together. This is even more difficult when this involves allies with different languages and cultural backgrounds. Interoperability consists of the following elements:
Technical Interoperability: This involves ensuring that hardware, equipment, and systems are compatible and can communicate with one another. This includes everything from communication systems to weapons and logistics platforms.
Procedural Interoperability: This element focuses on aligning doctrines, procedures, and operational tactics. It ensures that different forces can follow common operational procedures and doctrines, which is essential during joint operations.
Human Interoperability: This is about the training, terminology, and, in general, shared understanding necessary for personnel from different services or nations to work together effectively. Shared training programs and common terminology help reduce misunderstandings and enhance cooperation. I personally think that trust is the most important aspect of human interoperability.
Information Interoperability: This crucial aspect involves the ability to exchange data and information seamlessly. It ensures that various systems can share data, thus facilitating real-time situational awareness and decision-making across allied forces.[9] [10]
All these aspects of interoperability need to be in place before one can try to implement and execute MDO. Interoperability is recognized as something that needs to be in place. Yet, it is also assumed that this is something that can easily be achieved, and the current state of interoperability is often being overestimated. In practice, solving the puzzle of interoperability is extremely difficult and requires more than simply connecting radios. Especially the human and procedural components take time and require trust. In then, building trust often also needs a lot of effort and time. It is for these reasons that interoperability is the Achilles' heel of MDO.
Why MDO Will Be More Difficult to Accomplish for European Armies.
The U.S. Army is enormous compared to many European armies and can genuinely claim to encompass capabilities in domains other than Land. The U.S. Army has ships (albeit for transportation), aviation, and a wide range of missiles, some of which can even target objects in space. Obviously, it is easier to talk of MDO when you can achieve effects in many domains within your own service. Perhaps the U.S. Army has these capabilities because of interoperability problems between them and the other services. Many European armies do not have this luxury. One can reasonably assume that interoperability within one service (like the Army) is better than between different services because of different communication systems, doctrines, and most importantly, different cultures. This alone will make MDO a more difficult pursuit for smaller armies because they will always first need to achieve interoperability between their different services.
Another reason why MDO will be more difficult for European armies is that they almost always need to work together as allies. Take, for example, the Dutch Army, which has its Brigades subordinated to German Divisions, which in turn will likely operate under an international Corps Headquarters. Assets from different domains, be they maritime or air, will therefore also likely be of different nationalities. The aforementioned problem of interoperability is even larger than that between services within one nation. Many European armies still use different communication equipment and procedures that are not well-suited to cooperate.[11] NATO is built exactly for this purpose, and it is increasingly becoming successful in making European armies successfully interoperable. However, it is fair to assume that NATO will not achieve the same level of interoperability as the U.S. Army in the near term. This may not be a revelation to many, but it is an important factor when it comes to our ambitions concerning MDO when we try to compare ourselves with those across the pond. The U.S. Army is nonetheless still struggling to make MDO effective, despite the huge advantages they have in terms of interoperability. European armies should watch the progress of the U.S. Army and Armed Forces in general when it comes to MDO, as it will likely be even more challenging for European armies to achieve.
[1] https://militairespectator.nl/artikelen/multi-domein-optreden-perspectief#_ftn12
[2] https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2021/02/26/b45372c1/20181206-tp525-3-1-the-us-army-in-mdo-2028-final.pdf
[3] US Army presentation on MDO, Ft Liberty, U.S., 26th of June 2024
[4] NATO, Alliance Concept for Multi-Domain Operations. NATO and Allied Command Transformation, NATO Initial Alliance Concept for Multi-Domain Operations, March 10th 2023.
[5] https://warontherocks.com/2024/01/empty-promises-a-year-inside-the-world-of-multi-domain-operations/
[6] LinkedIn, 9th of May 2024: The joke is often made with reference to Big Data.
[7] U.S. Army officer, Ft Sill, U.S. 18th June 2024.
[8] https://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/documents/ArmyEABConcept.pdf
[9] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_84112.htm
[10] NATO - Topic: Standardization
[11] Illusions of Autonomy: Why Europe Cannot Provide for Its Security If the United States Pulls Back | International Security | MIT Press
First image created with Designer AI from Bing.