![]() ![]() As the post-ISAF era dawns, not only are nations now increasingly reluctant to engage in military operations, but even if they were to do so, there would be considerable pressure on governments to ensure an absolute minimum of casualties. ![]() ![]() The author’s view is that the Alliance has been failing to correctly resource FP for a number of years and we have been extremely lucky that our adversaries have not exploited this weakness this situation cannot be allowed to continue. The resulting information has been analysed by the author who is a career FP officer. This has allowed the capture of over 150 different views, from 36 countries, all components2 and from across a range of ranks. ![]() Students attending the NATO School OberamÂmergau (NSO) FP Course1 over the last 12 months have been challenged to analyse likely future military tasks and assess the FP implications. The thinking behind this work is that if a MMR can be defined that will provided a satisfactory level of protection across a spectrum of future scenarios, then NATO can seek from the nations the commitment of forces ahead of time as part of any national contribution to the NATO Reaction Force (NRF). In the first part of this article the author set the scene for the definition of what can be described as a Force Protection (FP) Minimum Military Requirement (MMR). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |