Abstract
Since 2010, a comprehensive approach has been adopted and implemented in planning and conducting all the operations of NATO. It is built on the logic that military operations do not stand alone, but are inherently deep-rooted in the strategic context provided by other strategic instruments of power such as the political/diplomatic, economic, and civil society. As effects have to be generated within this multifaceted context, common sense dictated that effect-based thinking for military plans and operations has to become intrinsically tied to the comprehensive approach.Legitimacy is not directly identified in the NATO strategy, concepts, doctrines, or planning documents yet, as pointed out earlier in chapter two, it is an important holistic strategic parameter that in this case will determine the scope of NATO action—or inaction. This chapter will argue that despite its absence in the wording of doctrine, legitimacy is implicitly sought at all stages of the NATO planning processes, comfortably nested in the philosophy of effect-based thinking. Furthermore, this chapter will explore, in the spirit of effect-based thinking, how NATO develops and utilizes capabilities such as planning structures and procedures to implement the alliance’s contribution to a comprehensive approach.Even though the “big three,” United States, Britain, and France, hold a predominant position, it is obvious by definition that an alliance cannot adopt a state-centric driven grand strategy. Quite simply, NATO has to literally negotiate a consensus around the common security strategy, as well as negotiate common consent to the strategy it adopts to pursue its strategic goals in theater.