"War without allies is bad enough; with allies, it is hell." This wry comment on the difficulties inherent in forming a coordinated military force from the armies of different nations, made by Sir John Slessor in Strategy for the West in 1954, serves as a reminder of the challenges facing the American, British, Canadian, and Australian (ABCA) coalition. Turning the coalition’s potential hell of a problem into a heavenly bed of roses is the job of the ABCA Standardization Program, which has the goal of ensuring "that [ABCA] Armies achieve agreed levels of standardization necessary for two or more ABCA Armies to operate effectively together within a coalition . . ." One of the most important bodies working toward this goal under the ABCA program is the Quadripartite Working Group for Logistics (QWG [pronounced "quig"] LOG). In today’s Army, where multinational operations are becoming more common and all soldiers must be able to work closely with allies, logisticians should be familiar with the important work QWG LOG is doing.
TEAL, WSO, and QWG?
QWG LOG is one of a number of bodies that to-gether make the ABCA Standardization Program work. The program is headed by the vice chiefs of staff of the four member armies. Collectively, they are known as the TEAL, and they provide direction and guidance to the program on behalf of their parent armies. The TEAL meets annually. (The name "TEAL" is derived from the original organization, Tripartite Equipment and Logistics.)
Beneath the TEAL in the ABCA program’s organ-izational structure are the Washington Standardiza-tion Officers (WSO’s). They also are four in number: the senior officers at the British, Canadian, and Aus-tralian embassies in Washington and the Deputy Un-der Secretary of the Army for International Affairs at the Pentagon. The WSO’s meet each month.
The Primary Standardization Office (PSO) pro-vides staff support to the TEAL and the WSO’s. The PSO has a multinational staff of eight people who conduct day-to-day management and act as the pro-gram’s office of record. They also maintain close li-aison with other standardization programs, especially the ABCA Air Force and Navy programs.
The job of working out standardization agree-ments, as directed by the TEAL and the WSO’s, is the responsibility of the QWG’s, of which there are 16. Each QWG is composed of a standing chairman and a national point of contact (NPOC) from each member army. QWG’s usually meet every 18 months. Most QWG work is done between meetings.
QWG LOG
QWG LOG was established by the ABCA Stand-ardization Program in 1973. The Office of the Dep-uty Chief of Staff for Logistics (ODCSLOG) origi-nally was designated as the U.S. Army’s NPOC. However, in 1976 ODCSLOG transferred that re-sponsibility to the Logistics Evaluation Agency (now the Logistics Integration Agency [LIA]) in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, where it has remained.
The other QWG LOG NPOC’s are the Directorate for Land Warfare at Headquarters Doctrine and Training in Upavon, England; the Directorate Army Training at Kingston, Ontario, Canada; and the Lo-gistics Policy Branch at Army Headquarters in Can-berra, Australia. The standing chairman of QWG LOG is the Sustainment Chief, Canadian Directorate for Army Doctrine, in Kingston.
QWG LOG Supports the Army’s Direction
QWG LOG’s mission is to focus on all combat service support matters, except medical, that affect coalition operations. This coalition mission is becoming increasingly important to the U.S. Army because the Force XXI Army often will fight as part of an alliance or coalition. Doctrinal publications such as FM 100-5 and Army Training and Doctrine Command Pamphlets 525-5 and 525-200-6 now stress that in the future logistics will be more of a collective enterprise and less of a strictly national responsibility. QWG LOG is one of the organizations leading the way toward this logistics fu-ture.
QWG LOG receives its direction for standardization work from the ABCA TEAL through the WSO’s. The WSO’s approve QWG LOG’s "top 10" list of standardization issues to pursue on behalf of the member armies.
The most recent QWG LOG agreement signed by the ABCA Armies concerned handling of deceased personnel in an area of operations. This agreement was initially drafted in conjunction with LIA, the Army Mortuary Affairs Center at Fort Lee, Virginia, and the Marine Corps Combat Development Command at Quantico, Virginia. It then was used by the Army, as the joint proponent, to develop portions of Joint Chiefs of Staff Publication 4-06, Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Mortuary Affairs in Joint Operations. This example demonstrates how QWG LOG’s work on ABCA agreements becomes incorporated into U.S. doctrine.
In addition, Joint Staff guidance is reinforcing the importance of coalition standardization work to U.S. forces. Recent Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instructions 2700.01 and 3120.07 directed the commanders in chief (CINC’s) of the unified commands to "maximize joint and logistic cooperation in pursuit of interoperability in procedures, logistic command and control, and common support equipment." CINC’s also "are encouraged to participate in the international military RSI [rationalization, standardization, and interoperability] process by making recommendations to the lead service on RSI developments and CINC priorities and participating in the evaluation process where appropriate." To ensure that the U.S. support forces made available to the unified commands are capable of operating with ABCA forces, LIA, as the Army NPOC for QWG LOG, is soliciting standardization issues from each unified command. From this solicitation, LIA will incorpo-rate CINC standardization requirements into the QWG LOG program of action.
QWG LOG's Top 10 Tasks
QWG LOG has developed over 40 logistics-related agreements so far. In addition, QWG LOG has a backlog of standardization issues that will be elevated to the top 10 list as soon as current top 10 tasks are completed. Some examples of these backlogged standardization issues are interoperability of logistics automatic data processing systems, common procedures for selected law enforcement activities, and interchangeability of fuel.
The number one priority on QWG LOG’s current top 10 list (see chart at left) is to develop and finalize the Coalition Logistics Planning Guide (CLPG). As its title indicates, this publication provides standard guidance and logistics checklists that can be used as a generic planning guide for any coalition operation. One checklist is a matrix that matches the logistics functions needed to support a coalition operation plan (OPLAN) against the different means of performing those functions (for example, through collective re-sponsibility, execution by one nation, contracting, or host nation support).
A second checklist provides planners some basic questions to ask in developing an OPLAN for a coalition force. The coalition planner’s goal should be twofold: determine collective materiel requirements; then identify the most efficient and effective coalition logistics force structure that will sustain the OPLAN while minimizing duplication of individual national logistics efforts.
QWG LOG envisions that the CLPG, after its for-mal acceptance as an agreement by the ABCA program, will be available to assist the logistics planners of all four armies in executing future coalition operations.
The second priority on the top 10 list concerns loading. Military operations can quickly become inefficient when multiple modes of transportation are used to distribute materiel, equipment, and personnel. This inefficiency is compounded when loading involves more than one nation and loading operations are not standardized. To avoid loading pitfalls in coalition operations, QWG LOG is developing agreements on bulk cargo movement systems and requirements for loading materiel and equipment for intratheater onward movement.
Loading has a relationship with the next two tasks on the top 10 list: coordination of intratheater administrative movement and force reception. Task three requires QWG LOG to agree on compatible procedures, organization, authority, and responsibility for coordinating intratheater administrative movement—in other words, a coalition movement control center.
Task four requires QWG LOG to examine the establishment of a combined-joint reception center for coalition forces coming into a theater. This is not an easy task, because theater reception involves not only armies from different nations but also other armed services.
Task five involves standardizing procedures for financial accounting and reimbursement of participating nations for coalition use of logistics sustainment resources and services. It also calls for setting up contracting services on a collective, as opposed to a national, basis; this will ensure that coalition members do not compete against themselves for the same scarce resources.
Task six—supply, demand, issue, and control—is composed of many parts. So far, QWG LOG has agreed to use U.S. national stock numbers as the basis for developing a common critical priority system for demand, salvage, disposal, and packaging procedures. Some new areas for QWG LOG scrutiny include storage procedures, handling of hazardous and dan-gerous goods, management of reusable containers, cargo marking for transport, and interoperability requirements for asset tracking and visibility.
Task seven covers host nation support (HNS). Work continues on defining the organization, roles, and responsibilities for coordinating HNS within a coalition environment. Another ABCA QWG is developing an agreement on the procedures to be used for coordination among the coalition’s governmental and nongovernmental agencies and a host nation.
Task eight calls for agreement on sustainment planning factors. At the most recent QWG LOG meeting, the British, Canadian, and Australian Armies agreed to evaluate the U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command’s operational logistics planner as a common tool for calculating sustainment planning for coalition operations.
The ninth task requires QWG LOG to investigate tracking and tracing of personnel. Although this is not strictly a G4 logistics task, it is an important responsibility for any coalition commander. As a consequence, QWG LOG has been asked to look at the G1 personnel area and contribute recommendations.
The last task on the top 10 list is developing procedures for handling and moving stocks, stores, and equipment. Some agreements already exist in this area, such as those on materials-handling equipment and material-handling aids. The United Kingdom is investigating new issues in this area for QWG LOG.
As more U.S. personnel become involved in multinational operations, more opportunities exist for greater standardization. If any soldier has witnessed a logistics problem while serving in a multinational force with British, Canadian, or Australian (including New Zealand) forces and thinks standardization would help, he should contact LIA with the problem and any solutions he believes would help. The address is: Director, Logistics Integration Agency, ATTN: LOIA-OE (ABCA QWG LOG NPOC), 54 M Avenue, Suite 4, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070-5007; or you may call (717) 770-7449; or send e-mail to—blevan@lia-pa-smtpgw.army.mil.
Winston Churchill was quoted as saying, "There is only one worse thing than fighting with allies—and that is fighting without them." QWG LOG is paving the way so the Army’s road to fighting with allies is smooth, and not filled with potholes. ALOG
Bernard P. LeVan is the U.S. national point of contact for the ABCA Quadripartite Working Group for Logistics. He is a senior logistics management specialist in the Operations and Evaluation Division, Logistics Integration Agency, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. He is a graduate of the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa and holds a master’s degree from American Technological University in Killeen Texas. He is also a graduate of the Army Logistics Management College’s Logistics Executive Development Course and Program in Executive Logistics Development and an honors graduate of the Army Command and General Staff College. He is an Army Reserve lieutenant colonel.