text: Chapter 3
  Considerations to Achieve Unity of Effort
  This chapter discusses achieving unity of effort with two major groups of stability
  partners. It begins by discussing considerations for a whole-of-government approach
  among interagency partners. It concludes by discussing a comprehensive approach
  for unity of effort with interorganizational partners based outside the United States.
  WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT APPROACH
  3-1. Army doctrine describes operations focused on stability using both a whole-of-government approach
  and a comprehensive approach to achieve unity of effort, depending of the nature of the partnerships. A
  whole-of-government approach encompasses coordination among all interagency partners. Such
  coordination is known as interagency coordination. Interagency coordination is defined as within the
  context of Department of Defense involvement, the coordination that occurs between elements of
  Department of Defense, and engaged United States Government agencies and departments for the purpose
  of achieving an objective (JP 3-0). In the context of Army stability, partners can refer to organizations or
  their individual representatives who collaborate through structured teams or informal cooperation. Army
  forces perform stability tasks as partners in support of U.S. policy goals. In addition, this doctrine
  sometimes refers to U.S. and other partners as stability partners.
  3-2. Coordination among United States (U.S.) and other partners is known as interorganizational
  coordination. Interorganizational coordination is defined as the interaction that occurs among elements of
  the Department of Defense; engaged United States Government agencies; state, territorial, local, and tribal
  agencies; foreign military forces and government agencies; intergovernmental organizations;
  nongovernmental organizations; and the private sector (JP 3-08). For the purposes of Army stability
  doctrine, the discussion of a comprehensive approach emphasizes coordination with civilian and military
  partners based outside the U.S. Government and any not considered of the United States. Many principles
  that apply to interagency coordination also apply to interorganizational coordination. (See JP 3-08 for joint
  doctrine on interorganizational coordination during joint operations.)
  3-3. Security solutions are not likely to be determined by the military alone. U.S. military security efforts
  nest within a larger national security strategy that works with all the elements of good U.S. governance. As
  in the work of provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq and Afghanistan, engagements often include military
  forces working alongside governmental agencies in a whole-of-government approach. Working as stability
  partners, military forces can help build or restore the political, economic, and security institutions of
  weakened or failing states. Future engagements often include the coordinated action of civilian and military
  partners following natural disasters.
  3-4. In stability, unity of effort results from successful synchronization, coordination, and integration of
  activities by governmental and nongovernmental entities. While military operations typically demand unity
  of command (a single commander directs the actions of all forces toward a common objective), operations
  focused on stability require coordination and cooperation toward common objectives by participants who
  belong to different commands or organizations. Moreover, achieving unity of effort can be challenging in
  an ambiguous operational context that is neither war nor peace. During operations focused on stability,
  extensive overlap among defense, diplomacy, and development activities is necessary to achieve mission
  objectives. Different stability partners simultaneously perform various tasks to create a secure environment,
  establish government control, and gain support from the populace.