Command and Control

The US National Guard is closely tied to the C2 transformation programmes of the US Army; as their strategic and operational reserve there is no alternative. Yet the other missions of the National Guard - whether responses to pandemics, civil unrest, or natural disasters - have different priorities to meeting and destroying the enemy. Lt Gen (rtd) Jon Jensen, 22ndDirector of the National Guard, talks about those tensions, the ethos of mission and purpose, the funding for major change programmes, and how the US National Guard will adapt to the C2 challenges of the future. General Jensen's focus on people and process rather than technology and systems is refreshing and eye opening. The US National Guard will be challenged by the frictions in establishing a single C2 system that covers both the US Army National Guard (as part of the US Army) and the US Air National Guard (working under the USAF) but the legacy of Jon Jensen as Director should minimise tension and maximise effectiveness. Not a bad way to end 41 years of service. Lt Gen Jon Jensen has recently retired after more than four decades of service, culminating in 28 months as the 22ndDirector of the Army National Guard, a job that guided the formation, development, and implementation of all programs and policies affecting nearly 335,0000 soldiers in 50 states, 3 territories, and the District of Columbia. Jon joined the Iowa state guard in 1982 as a combat medic and went on to become an NCO before becoming an officer. This was, of course, the Cold War and the last period of Great Power competition. Since then, Jon experienced the Guard through Counter Terror missions and Counter Insurgency during the Global War of Terror, as well as the domestic demands of pandemic, civil unrest, and natural disasters. Before his role as Director, Jon served as the 31st Adjutant General of Minnesota and earlier, as Commanding General of the Minnesota National Guard's 34th Infantry Division. He also was dual-hatted as Deputy Commander and Army Reserve Component Integration Adviser, U.S. Army Africa and Southern European Task Force, U.S. Africa Command. He has commanded at the company, battalion, brigade and division levels. His operational assignments include operations DESERT SPRING in Kuwait, JOINT FORGE in Bosnia Herzegovina in SFOR14, and IRAQI FREEDOM, twice. The Disclaimer: Views expressed here do not represent those of the US National Guard, the US Department of Defense/Department of War, or any other institution.

Sometimes insubordination within the command chain actually works. Want an example? Take the infamous 1973 Yom Kippur War, when the divisional commander of a reserve formation (Ariel Sharon) circumvented not just his superiors but also the IDF chief in order to get approval for his plan. Gross insubordination….but it worked. History favours Sharon's own narrative but the command chain had a different perspective. Personalities matter in C2: sometimes the clash of commanders can be detrimental to the campaign. Sometimes insubordination is necessary, but you won't end up as Prime Minister every time. Nate Jennings explains the context of the fight, the decisions, and the background to the big decisions.

The key principles of logistics might not have changed (Jomini's principles remain as valid as ever), but we have been lulled into false sense of adequacy about logistics and war. Steve Leonard and Jon Klug delve into how protracted wars make command conversations about logistics and supply different. The honest advice from the G4 might not always be appreciated but husbanding resources for a long-war is something commanders need to hear, and probably don't get from elsewhere. War-gaming might help but when these exercises are limited by time and training outcomes, the realities and tensions of logistics are less about the last mile and more about an ability to adapt, innovate and invent. Steve and Jon's new book, 'Professionals talk Logistics', is available from Howgate Publishing now.

Everyone understands that civil agencies and institutions do not operate in the same way as military organisations. The culture, aims, objectives, and funding models are different, as is the way they run activity. So when militaries and these agencies interact, a sense of friction and misunderstanding often emerges. A small group of military staff stand between the behemoths of civil and military leaders – the CIMIC staff; it is their understanding of both sets of cultures that smooths activity in the 97% of military activity that is not combat operations. Kathleen Porath, academic advisor at the NATO CIMIC COE, talks about areas for improvement, the impact of technology, and the investments needed to improve relationships for the future.