Civil-Military Interaction: Learning from Experience

  • Koen van der West
  • Joerg Warstat


Successfully tackling Hybrid Threats requires effective Civil-Military Interaction (CMI). CMI, however, has often been described by scholars and practitioners as ineffective. This chapter looks at the experiences from NATO CMI practitioners, explores the challenges they face and provides recommendations for overcoming NATO's CMI challenges.


  1. Aaronson, Michael, Sverre Diessen, Yves de Kermabon, Mary Beth Long, and Michael Miklaucic. 2012. NATO Countering the Hybrid Threat. Prism 2 (4): 111–124.Google Scholar
  2. Bachmann, Sascha-Dominik. 2012. Hybrid Threats, Cyber Warfare and NATO’s Comprehensive Approach for Countering 21st Century Threats – Mapping the New Frontier of Global Risk and Security Management. Amicus Curiae 2011 (88): 14–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brinkmann, Svend. 2014. Unstructured and Semi-Structured Interviewing. In The Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research, 1st ed., 1–27. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brocades Zaalberg, Thijs W. 2006. Countering Insurgent-Terrorism: Why NATO Chose the Wrong Historical Foundation for CIMIC. Small Wars & Insurgencies 17 (4): 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. CCOE. 2015. CMI Survey Report: Operationalizing NATO Policy MC 0411/2. The Hague.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 2016. CMI Workshop Report: Operationalizing NATO Policy MC 0411/2. The Hague.Google Scholar
  7. DeRouen, Karl R., and Uk Heo. 2005. Defense and Security: A Compendium of National Armed Forces and Security Policies: Volume 1: Angola-Mexico. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  8. Egnell, Robert. 2013. Civil–Military Coordination for Operational Effectiveness: Towards a Measured Approach. Small Wars & Insurgencies 24 (2): 237–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frerks, Georg E. 2006. Principles and Pragmatism: Civil-Military Action in Afghanistan and Liberia. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Gjørv, Gunhild Hoogensen. 2014. Understanding Civil-Military Interaction: Lessons Learned from the Norwegian Model. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  11. Goodhand, Jonathan. 2013. Contested Boundaries: NGOs and Civil–Military Relations in Afghanistan. Central Asian Survey 32 (3): 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gregorian, H., and L. Olson. 2007. Interagency and Civil-Military Coordination: Lessons Learned from a Survey of Afghanistan and Liberia. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies 10 (1): 1–48.Google Scholar
  13. Gunneriusson, Hâkan. 2012. Nothing Is Taken Serious Until It Gets Serious: Countering Hybrid threats. Defence Against Terrorism Review 4 (1): 47–70.Google Scholar
  14. Hallett, Michael, and Oke Thorngren. 2011. Attempting a Comprehensive Approach Definition and Its Implications for Reconceptualizing Capability Development. In Capability Development in Support of Comprehensive Approaches, 1st ed.. Washington, DC: Centre for Technology and National Security Policy.Google Scholar
  15. Hennink, Monique M. 2015. Introducing Focus Groups Discussions. In Understanding Focus Group Discussions, 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.Google Scholar
  16. Jacobs, Andreas, and Guillaume Lasconjarias. 2015. NATO’s Hybrid Flanks: Handling Unconventional Warfare in the South and the East. In NATO’s Response to Hybrid Threats, 1st ed., 257–276. Rome: NATO Defense College.Google Scholar
  17. Lasconjarias, Guillaume, and Jeffrey A. Larsen. 2015. Introduction: A New Way of Warfare. In NATO’s Response to Hybrid Threats, 1st ed., 1–14. Rome: NATO Defense College.Google Scholar
  18. Metcalfe, Victoria, Simone Haysom, and Stuart Gordon. 2012. Trends and Challenges in Humanitarian Civil-Military Coordination, HPG Working Paper.
  19. Mockaitis, Thomas R. 2004. Civil-Military Cooperation in Peace Operations. Carlisle Barracks: Strategic Studies Institute.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. NATO. 2015. Keynote Speech by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the Opening of the NATO Transformation Seminar. NATO.
  21. ———. 2016. Collective Defence – Article 5. NATO.
  22. NATO ACT (Allied Command Transformation). 2010. Civil-Military Interaction Gap Analysis Report. Norfolk: NATO Allied Command Transformation.Google Scholar
  23. NATO Bi-SC (Bilateral Strategic Command). 2010. Bi-SC Input to a New NATO Capstone Concept for the Military Contribution to Countering Hybrid threats.Google Scholar
  24. NATO MC (Military Committee). 2014. MC 0411/2: NATO Military Policy on Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC) and Civil-Military Interaction (CMI).Google Scholar
  25. NATO NAC (North Atlantic Council). 2014. Wales Summit Declaration.
  26. NATO NSA (NATO Standardization Agency). 2010. AJP-01(D): Allied Joint Doctrine. Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2011. AJP-03(B): Allied Joint Doctrine for the Conduct of Operations. Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2013. AJP-05: Allied Joint Doctrine for Operational-Level Planning. Google Scholar
  29. Noll, J., and S.J.H. Rietjens. 2016. Learning the Hard Way: NATO’s Civil-Military Cooperation. In Theorising NATO: New Perspectives on the Atlantic Alliance, ed. M.A. Webber and A.G.V. Hyde-Price, 232–242. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Reisinger, Heidi, and Alexander Golts. 2015. Russia’s Hybrid Warfare: Waging War Below the Radar of Traditional Collective Defence. In NATO’s Response to Hybrid Threats, 1st ed., 113–136. Rome: NATO Defense College.Google Scholar
  31. Rietjens, Sebastiaan J.H. 2016. Civil-Military Interaction: From Practice to Theory. In Effective Civil-Military Interaction in Peace Operations, ed. Gerard Lucius and Sebastiaan J.H. Rietjens, 1st ed. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Rietjens, Sebastiaan J.H., and Gerard Lucius. 2016. Getting Better at Civil-Military Interaction. In Effective Civil-Military Interaction in Peace Operations, ed. Gerard Lucius and Sebastiaan J.H. Rietjens. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Rietjens, Sebastiaan J.H., Kirsten Verlaan, Thijs W. Brocades Zaalberg, and Sirp J. de Boer. 2009. Inter-organisational Communication in Civil-Military Cooperation During Complex Emergencies: A Case Study in Afghanistan. Disasters 33 (3): 412–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salkind, Neil J. 2010. Triangulation. In Encyclopedia of Research Design. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  35. Scheltinga, Tjallie A.M., Sebastiaan J.H. Rietjens, Sirp J. De Boer, and Celeste P.M. Wilderom. 2005. Cultural Conflict Within Civil-Military Cooperation: A Case Study in Bosnia. Low Intensity Conflict & Law Enforcement 13 (1): 54–69. doi: 10.1080/09662840500223606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shirreff, Richard. 2010. Unity of Purpose in Hybrid Conflict: Managing the Civilian/Military Disconnect and ‘Operationalizing’ the Comprehensive Approach. In International Security Department, European Security and Defence Forum. [online] Chatham House. Available at: Accessed 21 Apr 2016.
  37. Thynne, Kelisiana, and Gwen Cherne. 2016. Preparation Starts at Home: Education and Training for Civil-Military Interaction. In Effective Civil-Military Interaction in Peace Operations, ed. Gerard Lucius and Sebastiaan J.H. Rietjens, 1st ed. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koen van der West
    • 1
  • Joerg Warstat
    • 1
  1. 1.Civil-Military Cooperation Centre of ExcellenceThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations