"UNITY OF COMMAND IN AFGHANISTAN: A FORSAKEN PRINCIPLE OF WAR"

For the really serious, a paper by Canadian Col. Ian Hope (via Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs). The author:

Colonel Ian Hope is an instructor at the U.S. Army War College. Previous assignments included commander of the 1st Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group (Task Force Orion) under Operation ENDURING FREEDOM in Kandahar, Afghanistan, from January to August 2006, during which his soldiers experienced intense and sustained combat...

The result of Col. Hope's analysis (sorry about all the acronyms):

...It is, therefore, the conclusion of this research that we must amend the UCP and invest supreme command over Afghanistan in SACEUR. In order to galvanize NATO Alliance partners and begin the difficult process of coalition building around a NATO-run fight, while keeping parallel American capabilities in-theater, the entire OEF joint operating area (JOA) must be realigned under EUCOM [US EUCOM's commander is always double-hatted as NATO SACEUR], and EUCOM must be designated as a supported combatant command. The ISAF Headquarters in Kabul should be designated as an integrated sub-unified command under EUCOM to report directly to SHAPE [within SHAPE, "...Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) ... [is] responsible for all Alliance operations, ranging from the Straits of Gibraltar to Afghanistan]...While hardly efficient from an American perspective, it is the only way that NATO partners can be integrated to fight under their traditional supreme commander, and under the alliance’s normal strategic war-management system...

This is what the Americans have ended up with (for now):

Afstan: New US command structure

Still split between SACEUR and CENTCOM.