At the same time, there is an ongoing internal NATO debate over the command arrangements that would be necessary to support a NATO intervention under a UN peace operations mandate. At its heart is an almost other-worldly "chicken and the egg" dispute between the United States -- which refuses to commit its forces unless they are part of an operation using the NATO command structure -- and France -- which argues that command relationships can only be agreed on the basis of which nations have committed the most forces. The result is that France will not seriously consider using the existing NATO chain of command unless the U.S. has already committed its forces, while the U.S. will not agree to commit its forces unless there is prior agreement on using the NATO chain of command. From the American perspective, this debate strikes at the very core of the Alliance, since the French position is seen to imply that any non-Article 5 military operation would require an "ad hoc" command arrangement totally dependent on the number of forces each nation commits. From the French perspective, the American insistence on using the command relationships of the integrated military structure, where France is not a player, seems designed to deliberately marginalize the French role.
While as a practical matter the NATO chain of command has already been adopted for both naval and air operations in support of UN activities involving the former Yugoslavia, resolution of the theoretical debate is crucial if the Alliance is to move beyond crisis response to developing standard doctrine and long range planning for peace support operations.[footnote #19] This is not to say that progress is not being made in the development of NATO doctrine for peace support operations. Current efforts to draw on the lessons of the former Yugoslavia have identified potential NATO roles in a spectrum of operations including humanitarian assistance, conflict prevention, traditional peacekeeping, and peace enforcement operations should a situation develop that would require the use of force.[footnote #20] Such NATO roles, to be carried out in support of UN or CSCE mandates, are designed to build on unique capabilities that the Alliance has developed over the past 45 years. These capabilities are generally agreed to include: a proven multinational command and control structure; the development of NATO standardization agreements on procedures and equipment; the availability of Alliance infrastructure and communications systems; and the maintenance of readily available multinational forces, to include both standing forces under the operational command of Major NATO Commanders (such as the NAEW AWACS force) and reaction forces that, while provided by member nations, have already exercised and trained together.[footnote #21]
One of the clear lessons of the Yugoslav experience, however, has been that as impressive as these capabilities may be, NATO is unlikely to be called upon to act alone in peace support operations. At the same time, it is increasingly probable that not all Allies will choose to participate in all aspects of any given NATO peace support operation. Provisions must be made to incorporate non-NATO forces and organizations alongside those of the Alliance, and to provide the Alliance with the capability to package its own forces in a flexible but effective manner. Within NATO, this issue is being addressed through the development of the Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) concept of force employment, which lends itself to both Alliance flexibility and integration of non-NATO units for specific missions such as peacekeeping. It also provides a vehicle through which NATO resources, including command arrangements, can be made available to the European allies if NATO itself chooses not to become involved.