text: Command and Control During Multinational Operations
  unity of effort, but also the foundation for the command guidance needed by staffs when conducting
  campaigns. During planning, commanders consider national sensitivities, capabilities, and norms.
  Multinational forces anticipate that some forces from member nations have direct and near immediate
  communications from the operational area to their respective national political leaders. The ability to have
  direct communications either eases coordination issues or becomes a source of friction if external leaders
  issue guidance directly to deployed national forces.
  COMMAND JURISDICTION
  2-13. Each participating nation in a multinational operation has its own national caveats (such as prohibited
  munitions and other operational or tactical limitations and constraints). Each nation is responsible to its own
  national legal authority for the conduct of operations as it views the conflict based on its own national
  interests. In addition to their national caveats, most nations will specify their level of support in terms of
  committed units and capabilities, duration of support, degree of interoperability, and acceptable command
  relationships and authorities.
  2-14. Multinational commanders must consider both political and military issues during operations. They
  work with each nation’s force and authorities of each nation to understand and work within the caveats
  provided by the political leaders. Where these interests overlap or align, commanders have the greatest
  latitude.
  NATIONAL INTEREST
  2-15. The political agendas of participating countries affect unity of effort during multinational operations.
  Many nations will not, or are reluctant to, relinquish command of their forces to other countries even when
  they work together toward a common objective. On a case-by-case basis, each country’s national government
  places national forces under the multinational commander’s operational control. In such cases, parallel chains
  of command exist through the coalition force and national authority. The multinational force’s challenge is
  to arrange the best command relationships with its subordinate forces to ensure mission success.
  2-16. The interests of nations regarding an operation are described in terms of reference between the troop
  contributing nations and other multinational partners or the UN if it is involved. The multinational force
  develops a written document that outlines command relationships. Partners can write this document as an
  annex to an operation plan, an operation order, or a campaign plan.
  2-17. The multinational force transfers authority to the multinational commander’s control. This may become
  a command relationship issue. Nations may not agree on when the transfer of control occurs. The earlier the
  multinational force gains control, the more flexibility it uses to train and conduct operations. Differences in
  national interests, objectives, and policies at the national level—and the availability of forces based on
  concurrent commitments—delay planning and agreement to subsequent decisions.
  COMMAND AND CONTROL INTEROPERABILITY
  2-18. Each multinational partner brings a unique mix of capabilities and limitations, potentially including
  fundamental differences in C2 doctrine, technologies, processes, and even basic geospatial datum and
  formats. Partners joining with incomplete (or incompatible) technological or procedural capability may lack
  the procedures, network, and digital tools or trained personnel to effectively share information. Other
  multinational partners may have policy or doctrinal constraints that inhibit information sharing across one or
  more security domains or with only select mission partners. Each U.S. combatant command may have
  agreements for bilateral information sharing with individual multinational partners that differ from potential
  partner to partner. The specific mission, roles, and tasks for each multinational partner may impact
  information sharing requirements. Varying standard groups exist today that define information exchange
  agreements and processes. For example, the Multilateral Interoperability Programme and artillery systems
  cooperation activities represent a mix of interoperability agreements and base standards for interoperability
  between multinational partners.
  2-19. Key to multinational interoperability is the capability to share data freely and securely. Such sharing
  enables a commander to create unity of effort with improved speed of C2 while building trust during mission-
  partnered operations and a shared information exchange network. Networks for sharing information facilitate
  communication, trust, and propagation of data between multinational forces and U.S. forces. This network