text: Chapter 1
  A WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT EFFORT
  1-41. Accomplishing U.S. policy objectives in any conflict requires government expertise and resources
  outside of the Department of Defense (DOD). Policy objectives, especially during a conflict, require a
  whole-of-government effort. A whole-of-government approach integrates the collaborative efforts of the
  departments and agencies of the U.S. government to achieve unity of effort toward a shared goal. A
  whole-of-government effort is vital to achieving the balance of resources, capabilities, and activities that
  reinforce progress made by one of the instruments of national power while enabling success among the
  others. It relies on coordination among the agencies of the U.S. government, including DOD, to ensure that
  the full range of available capabilities are used, synchronized, and applied to a given policy objective.
  Government agencies usually agree upon relationships and authorities in a memorandum of agreement or
  understanding. Military commanders exercise only the authority outlined in these agreements and are often
  directed by another agency. The terms in these documents may form the basis for establishing some form
  of relationship between commanders and agency chiefs. When unity of command is not possible,
  commanders strive to achieve unity of effort. Often, the interpersonal relationships that commanders
  establish with their interagency partners are essential.
  1-42. A whole-of-government effort incorporates all of the capabilities of the U.S. government to achieve
  U.S. national objectives. In many counterinsurgencies, for example, political objectives include assisting
  the host nation with managing the nonmilitary aspects of the insurgency. Therefore, these political
  objectives include eliminating the root causes of the insurgency. However, counterinsurgency commanders
  and planners must understand that, in the end, societies must address their own root causes of insurgency.
  Imposing major reforms may result in unintended consequences. Enabling a host nation to address the
  insurgency’s root causes increases its chances of defeating it. In dealing with the sorts of complex
  socio-cultural problems that counterinsurgents frequently face, “host-nation good enough” is normally
  better than what the U.S. would consider perfect, if it meets U.S. objectives.
  1-43. A primary challenge for integrating civilian and military efforts into a whole-of-government effort is
  the differing capabilities, capacities, cultures, objectives, and approaches in civilian agencies compared to
  those of military forces. A successful whole-of-government effort requires that all actors—
  * Are represented, integrated, and actively involved in the process.
  * Share an understanding of the situation and problem to be resolved.
  * Strive for unity of effort toward achieving a common goal.
  * Integrate and synchronize capabilities and activities.
  * Collectively determine the resources, capabilities, and activities necessary to achieve their goal.
  1-44. The importance of the commander’s personal involvement in building interorganizational trust,
  understanding, mutual respect, and friendships cannot be overstated. If organizational leaders do not set the
  appropriate tone and establish the necessary climate, the best whole-of-government plan will fail.
  1-45. A clear understanding of the desired end state and national objectives should infuse all efforts,
  regardless of the agencies or individuals charged with their execution. Given the primacy of political
  considerations, military forces often support civilian efforts. However, the nature of counterinsurgency
  operations means that lead responsibility often shifts among military, civilian, and host-nation authorities.
  In other words, as the U.S. shifts its policy and strategy, different agencies take on different roles during an
  operation. Different or changing relationships with the host nation may also drive shifts in lead
  responsibility between different authorities. Military leaders prepare to assume local leadership for
  counterinsurgency efforts if civilian leadership is unavailable or cannot access the area.
  1-46. U.S. land forces conducting counterinsurgency operations must recognize the legal authority of the
  Department of State, their chief country team, and the chief of mission. The chief of mission, who is
  normally the ambassador, is the principal officer in charge of a diplomatic facility of the U.S. The country
  team is the senior, in-country, U.S. coordinating and supervising body. Commanders ensure that they gain
  an understanding of the purposes, goals, and restrictions under which their interagency partners are
  operating. Without such an understanding, the military and nonmilitary efforts may frustrate and interfere
  with one another because the military and civilian organizations are functioning under separate statutory
  obligations that may lead to conflicting guidance and direction.