jfec_final

Service Intermediate-Level Colleges (JPME-1) Request for Review of Draft “Stability in Joint Planner Education” Support Package. Dear Education Leaders: Based upon the U.S. Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute’s (PKSOI) review of stability operations in joint planner education in 2014, we observed that your JPME-1 programs provide excellent instruction in operational art, design and planning with respect to the warfighting challenges in delivering decisive force through offensive and defensive operations. However, as joint doctrine notes, planners must also be skilled in how to integrate stability operations (SO) as the third essential part of balanced operational approaches and integrated plans that both accomplish military success and contribute to U.S. policy and strategy success. In our capacity as the lead for Joint Proponency in Peace and Stability Operations, the PKSOI has been tasked to support improvements in joint planner education with respect to stability operations. At the February 15th MECC, PKSOI committed to providing a series of resources to the JPME partners at the JFEC:

Proposed community learning objectives for including stability in joint planner education A concise set of key references for faculty instructors use in course design Lesson plans that explain the importance of stability in military and U.S. success and

methods for integrating stability into existing joint design and planning instruction. Case Studies that highlight the successful integration of stability into joint operations.

Attached are our coordinating drafts for the first three items, along with a description of our ongoing case study development efforts, for your review and suggested improvements as a JPME-1 partner. Our intent is to collaborate with the partner44 institutions to establish a community-accepted standard for stability operations learning objectives, and to provide the resources required to fully integrate stability into education for our future joint leaders and planners.

-2-

June 29, 2015

CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-5054

UNITED STATES ARMY WAR COLLEGE AND CARLISLE BARRACKS

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Please review the attached resources and provide you recommendations for changes and improvements by 1 Aug 15 for development of a final draft that will be provided back for discussion in September. Discussions and comments are welcome with the project lead (undersigned) via phone at (717) 245-3524 or electronically at [email protected] .

Respectfully, James H. Embrey Professor for Stability Operations Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute, USAWC

Enclosures: 5

mailto:[email protected]

29 June 2015

TO: Education Leaders, Service Intermediate-Level Colleges (JPME-1)

SUBJECT: Request for Review of Draft “Stability in Joint Planner Education” Support Package

Based upon our review of joint planner education in 2014, your JPME-1 programs provide excellent instruction in operational art, design and planning with respect to the warfighting challenges in delivering decisive force through offensive and defensive operations. However, as joint doctrine notes, planners must also be skilled in how to integrate stability operations (SO) as the third essential part of balanced operational approaches and integrated plans that both accomplish military success and contribute to U.S. policy and strategy success. In our capacity as the lead for Joint Proponency in Peace and Stability Operations, the USAWC’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI) has been tasked to support improvements in joint planner education with respect to stability operations. At the February 15 MECC, PKSOI committed to providing a series of resources to the JPME partners at the JFEC:

Proposed community learning objectives for including stability in joint planner education A concise set of key references for faculty instructors use in course design Lesson plans that explain the importance of stability in military and U.S. success, and

methods for integrating stability into existing joint design and planning instruction. Case Studies that highlight the successful integration of stability into joint operations.

Attached is our coordinating draft of the first three items, along with a description of our ongoing case study development efforts, for review and suggested improvements by the JPME-1 partners. Our intent is to collaborate with you to establish a community-accepted standard for stability operations learning objectives, and to provide the resources required to fully integrate stability into education for our future joint leaders and planners. Please review the attached resources and provide you recommendations for changes and improvements by 1 Aug 15 for development of a final draft that will be provided back for discussion in September. Discussions and comments are welcome with the project lead (undersigned) via phone at (717) 245-3524 or electronically at [email protected] .

Respectfully,

James H. Embrey Professor for Stability Operations Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute, USAWC

Enclosures: 5


Coordinating Draft (29 Jul 15)

Proposed Learning Objectives: Stability in Design and Planning for Joint Operations

As part joint proponency efforts, PKSOI proposes for consideration and approval by the JPME community the following learning objectives for stability operations as part of joint design and planning:

1. Understand the importance of stability operations in overall U.S. strategic success.

• U.S. and DoD policy guidance on stability and the role of military forces

• Integration into current Combatant Command strategy and operations

2. Analyze how stability is included into joint design and planning across the Range of Military Operations.

• Joint Operating Concepts and Doctrine for SO – key missions, tasks and capabilities

• Major mission sets across the ROMO – how stabilization efforts enable strategic and operational success

• Operational design - how current principles apply to stability efforts across a variety of joint operations (SC/SFA, FHA, PO, FID, COIN, and MCO’s)

• Including stability considerations and tasks into all phases of a joint operation

3. Analyze leader challenges in the “stabilize” aspects of joint operations through the use of historical examples and case studies.

• Analyzing the OE and collaborating with partners to develop a shared understanding with civilian partners focused on conflict analysis

• Developing unity of purpose with interagency and multinational partners

• Conducting design and planning – developing “stabilize” aspect of objectives, mission/commander’s intent, and tasks

• Collaboration and Coordination with other JIIM elements during planning and operations – operating with/alongside one another in a “shared space” to enable host nation “stability” success

• Best Practices, challenges and pitfalls identified

Please forward comments/suggestions to Dr James Embrey, Professor for Stability Operations, PKSOI, (717) 345-3524, [email protected]


Coordinating Draft (28 Jun 15)

Top 20 References for Stability in Joint Operations: Suggested Resources for Professional Military Educators

Current joint education provides excellent instruction in operational art, design and planning with respect to warfighting challenges in delivering decisive force through offensive and defensive operations. However, as joint doctrine notes, integrating stability operations (SO) is the third essential part of a balanced operational approach and integrated plan that accomplishes military success while contributing to broader U.S. policy and strategy success. As part of its joint proponency support mission, the Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI) has developed a short bibliography of references that can support JPME course and faculty instructor preparation. The following reference presents what PKSOI considers to be the “Top 20” references for use by educators and practitioners for use as a “baseline” for developing a general understanding of SO and how best to integrate key principles and considerations into design and planning. The list of references is divided into categories according to JIIM and functional areas, providing the core resources (highlighted below) that are accompanied in several cases by additional supplemental readings for additional understanding. This listing is not intended to be comprehensive, but rather a start point for those not familiar with stability efforts to develop an appreciation for the role, contributions, principles and practices for SO. For those desiring a more comprehensive bibliography, PKSOI’s Knowledge Management Division maintains a wealth of unclassified and shareable readings, studies, operational reports, techniques, and lessons learned that can be access through the Stability Operations Lessons Learned Information Management System (SOLLIMS) at www.pksoi.org. Finally, the best source for compiling a useful listing is by feedback and contributions from its users. PKSOI appreciates and encourages recommendations for improving this listing, and for increasing the depth, breadth and quality through direct comments (PoC’s below) or entry into SOLLIMS. It is our intent to update and republish this “Top 20” listing on a recurring basis, so feedback and improvements are key. The following listing has been prepared by Mr Robert Kumpf, Research Associate, PKSOI with the guidance and support of Mr Chris Browne, Knowledge Management Branch, PKSOI. For suggested improvements and questions on additional resources, please contact the Stability and Proponency Division, US Army Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute, at www.pksoi.mil. PoC for future revision is Dr James Embrey, Professor of Stability Operations, (717) 245-3524, [email protected].

http://www.pksoi.org/

http://www.pksoi.mil/



Top 20 Core References for Stability Operations As of 28 Jun 15 Joint Operations 1. Stability Operations, Joint Publication 3-07, 29 September 2011. Stability operations are “the various military missions, tasks, and activities conducted outside the US in coordination with other government agencies to maintain or reestablish a safe and secure environment, provide essential governmental services, emergency infrastructure reconstruction, and humanitarian relief.” This JP provides guidance for the design, planning and conduct of stability operations with interagency and multinational partners. 2. Stabilization, Security, Transition and Reconstruction Operations, Major Combat Operations Joint Operating Concepts, December 2006. This JOC supplements the Stability Operations JOC Version 2.0 (2004), and provides the broad, overarching concept of how the full range of joint military support provided in foreign countries across the ROMO can play a key role in enabling U.S. strategic success by supporting U.S. partners in a state or region under severe stress or undergoing failure of its government and security institutions due to either a natural or man-made disaster.

Supplemental References for Breadth and Depth:

- Security Cooperation, Joint Publication 3-20, Revised Draft #2, Publication Date Pending. This publication will serve as the US Armed Forces’ guide to security cooperation operations, as provided by the DoD through the Joint Staff. This JP will provide most current information on SC planning, design and assessment that contribute to stability among partner countries.

- Foreign Humanitarian Assistance, Joint Publication 3-29, 03 January 2014. FHA

consists of overseas DOD activities to directly relieve or reduce human suffering, disease, hunger or privation. The JP focuses on military integration with other US and multinational partners.

- Peace Operations, Joint Publication 3-07.3, 01 August 2012. These operations include peacekeeping, peace building in post-conflict actions, peacemaking processes, conflict prevention, and peace enforcement; chapter 1 focuses on design and planning.

- Foreign Internal Defense, Joint Publication 3-22, 12 July 2010. Focuses on activities that support the host nation’s Internal Defense and Development Strategy with key stabilizing aspects. Pending the publication of JP 3-20, this pub also contains Security Cooperation as well.

- Counterinsurgency Operations, Joint Publication 3-24, 22 November 2013. Describes comprehensive civ-mil efforts designed to simultaneously defeat and contain insurgency and address root causes. Focus of chapter 3 is on fundamentals of integrating civilian and joint operations to counter insurgencies.

- Civil-Military Operations, Joint Publication 3-57, 11 September 2013. Focuses on activities by designated civil affairs or other military forces that establish, maintain, influence, or exploit relationships with indigenous populations and institutions, to reestablish or maintain stability.


Stability Operation Across the Military Services

Army:

3. Stability, Army Doctrine Reference Publication 3-07, 31 August 2012. This source is an in-depth reference guide to the army’s stability operations doctrine. This publication is useful in understanding the army’s role as the major ground force component of the US military when engaged in warfare and operations other than war. 4. Stability Operations, Army Techniques Publication 3-07.5, 31 August 2012. This source is an in-depth techniques and procedures guide to the army’s stability operations. This publication is useful in understanding the army’s role as the major ground force component of the US military when engaged in stability operations and highlights the planning considerations required for successful intervention.

Supplemental Army References for Breadth and Depth

- Stability, Army Doctrine Publication 3-07, 31 August 2012. This source is the basis of

US Army stability operations doctrine. This publication explains the Army’s role in stability operations, including unique operational and planning considerations that are of strategic interest.

- Stability Operations, Field Manual 3-07, 02 June 2014. This source is the US Army’s

field manual dealing with stability operations. This provided valuable insight into the required planning, design and assessment tools needed for a successful stabilization intervention.

- Army Support to Security Cooperation, Field Manual 3-22, 22 January 2013. This

source is the US Army’s field manual dealing with the army’s support for security cooperation. This provided valuable insight into the required planning, design and assessment tools needed for a successful security cooperation plan that fits hand-in-glove with stability operations.

- “Developing an Army Strategy for Building Partner Capacity for Stability Operations”,

RAND Corporation Arroyo Center, 2010. This document provides empirical analysis of the US Army’s capabilities (in 2007) to establish and maintain partnerships with foreign military and government leadership in order to conduct successful stability operations. This study, sponsored by DA G3, provides critical analysis of challenges faced by the American military as well as important observations regarding planning and design of army-led stability operations.

Naval/Marine Corps:

5. Maritime Stability Operations, Naval Warfare Publication 3-07, 25 May 2012. (NOTE: This is also MCIP 3-33.02 and COMDTINST M3120.11 for the Marine Corps and Coast Guard, respectively.) This source is the maritime element of the US stability operations plan, which governs the US Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps. This provides perspectives on joint maritime component operations that includes Navy-Marine efforts to enable maritime operations that counter instability through security, FHA, and other efforts to enable joint and USG success.


Air Force: 6. Stability Operations, Air Force Policy Directive 10-43, 25 October 2013. This directive outlines the Service’s stability operating guidelines as well as planning considerations as per DODI 3000.05. The policy highlights that the Air Force will continue support all other military and USG stability operations as per DOD directives. US Government and Department of Defense Guidance: 7. Department of Defense Instruction 3000.05, Stability Operations, 16 September 2009. This instruction sets DoD Policy for the services by emphasizing the importance of stability operations to US policy and strategy success, and requiring military forces that ensure equal emphasis on developing and maintain capabilities for stability operations that are equal to those for combat operations. Joint forces are also to be prepared to conduct a broad range of operations to stabilize either in support of other civilian agencies, or conduct efforts where civilian capacity does not exist or cannot operate (due to security challenges) to maintain or reestablish a safe and secure environment, provide essential governmental services, emergency infrastructure reconstruction, and humanitarian relief.

Supplemental References for Breadth and Depth - Security Sector Assistance Policy, Presidential Policy Directive 23, 05 April 2013.

Provides current POTUS guidance on strengthening the ability of the United States to help allies and partner nations build their own security capacity, consistent with the principles of good governance and rule of law – all key elements of stability operations.

- Irregular Warfare, Department of Defense Instruction 3000.07, 28 August 2014. Irregular Warfare is defined as any operation that includes any relevant DoD activity and operation such as counterterrorism; unconventional warfare; foreign internal defense; counterinsurgency; and stability operations that, in the context of IW, involve establishing or re-establishing order in a fragile state or territory.

- Mission Revolution by Jennifer Morrison Taw. New York: Columbia University Press,

2012. A former RAND analyst overviews the development of DoD and joint stability operations capabilities over the past two decades in Chapters 1-3.

Interagency Core References 8. Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction, USIP and PKSOI, 2009. This guide was produced as the “informal interagency guidelines” for stability operations by the US Army PKSOI and the US Institute for Peace. This provides an overview of the recurring principles for US government success in the planning, design and assessment of stability operations, based upon the analysis of a broad range of efforts over past decades. 9. 3D Planning Guide: Diplomacy, Development, Defense, 31 July 2012. This collaborative framework developed by DOD, USAID and DOS presents the common elements for planning amongst the 3D’s within an integrated USG effort. This publication provides valuable insights into the differing planning considerations and processes across USG element. This Guide is maintained in draft as a living document for continued discussion and development of cooperation across agencies.


Supplemental References for Breadth and Depth

- Conflict Assessment Framework Version 2.0, USAID, June 2012. This document is the USAID’s framework for assessing local conflict dynamics; valuable for situational awareness with USAID, and in conflict transformation planning.

- Interagency Conflict Assessment Framework, Version 2.0, US Department of State,

2014. Conflict assessment framework developed for country team and general interagency use as a follow-on to the original ICAF that provided the center-piece analysis for the Interagency Management System’s “Whole of Government Planning” process. Current version incorporates many aspects of the USAID CAF, but focuses more on political and power group actor dynamics than the OE of conflict. Forms the basis for Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations at DoS.

- The Quest for Viable Peace, Chapter 3 (Advanced Political-Military Planning), US

Institute of Peace, 4th edition 2009. The book provides an interesting case study of U.S. and multinational planning for the U.S and NATO led intervention into Kosovo in 1999. As a Dep Asst Secretary of State, Mr Hawley played a key role in conducting “advanced political-military planning,” for U.S. intervention planning in a JIIM environment which included all major aspects of stability operations.

- America’s Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, by James Dobbins. RAND

Corporation, 2003. This historical study conducted in conjunction with DOD examines 20th Century US government reconstruction efforts from Germany to Afghanistan. This work outlines the recurring considerations, challenges, and lessons learned across civ-mil design and planning, with specific discussions of several of the stability functions outlined in JP 3-07 and USIP’s Guiding Principles.

Multinational Operations: 10. UN Peacekeeping Operations Capstone Doctrine, United Nations, 2008. This publication serves as the UN’s “capstone doctrine” regarding the reformation of UN peacekeeping operations doctrine to better serve the current operational environment. This doctrine now serves as the UN’s primary guideline for peacekeeping and stability operations throughout the world. 11. Considerations for Mission Leadership in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, United Nations, 2010. This guidebook for civilian and military leaders in UN peacekeeping operations, includes perspective on Integrated Planning, Assessment Tools, and Prioritization/ Sequencing. 12. Integrated Assessment and Planning Handbook, United Nations, December 2013. This publication explains the UN’s integrated assessment and planning process for design and planning from the strategic (UN, New York and Security Council) through Operational (Integrated Mission Team for specific peacekeeping operations), and show how assessments, design and planning work within a United Nations international peace operations construct. This is the companion manual to JP 5-0, and is useful to joint planners in understanding the approaches and methods when working with or alongside UN missions.

Supplemental References for Breadth and Depth


- UN Peacekeeping in Civil Wars by Lise Morje Howard. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2008. This publication is a balanced exploration of the history of United Nations peacekeeping missions that highlights both the successes as well as the challenges and failures of UN PK efforts. This source provides views of how UN efforts are effective and provides insights where new planning, design and assessment tools for future US -led peace operations can be developed.

- Designing Mandates and Capabilities for Future Peace Operations, International Forum

on the Challenges of Peace Operations. Stockholm, Sweden: Taberg Media Group, 2014. This publication offers valuable insight to the design and capabilities for future peacekeeping and stability operations. Chapters 3 (policies and practices for UNPK) and 5 (assessment) are particularly valuable to operational and strategic planners.

- “Five Paradoxes of Peace Operations,” by Richard Gowan. Policy Briefing for the Zif Center for International Peace Operations, September 2011. The German peace operations institution Zif explores the paradoxical existence of organizations such as the UN in regard to peacekeeping operations across five major topic areas and provides insightful analysis of the issues facing global peacekeeping operations.

- “Peacekeeping under Strain: Coping with Evolving Contradictions,” by Tim Guildman. Peace and Conflict Review. Volume 4, Issue 2. 2010. Offers commentary on recurring challenges that face peacekeepers as part of stability operations, and provides insight on how operations have been successful and unsuccessful due to competing national interests, domestic and international political strains, and cultural misunderstandings.

- “The US Role in Contemporary Peace Operations: A Double Edged Sword?” by Ian Johnstone and Ethan Corbin International Peacekeeping. London, England: Routledge Publishing, 05 March 2008. This commentary explores the complicated task that US leaders have to consider when planning for, designing and attempting to assess Peace Operations as part of joint stability operations. It highlights the difficulties that the US faces in the world we are able (and willing) to lead within the peacekeeping community without unduly forcing our national interests upon our partners and the host nation.

- High- Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations: Uniting Our Strengths for Peace- Politics, Partnerships and People, United Nations, 01 June 2015. Most current assessment by the United Nations on the challenges and options for future international peacekeeping. The Panel explores how the spread of violent extremism, overlaid onto long-simmering local or regional conflicts and the growing aspirations of populations for change, is placing pressure on governments and the international system to respond. As UN peace operations struggle to achieve their objectives, the Panel concludes that major changes are required to adapt and ensure their increased PK effectiveness and appropriate use in future.

- Comprehensive Approach- EUCOM Planning Handbook Common Planning Framework, US European Command, September 2012. Combatant Command J9 views on employing a comprehensive approach to planning and operations among European partners (particularly NATO). Includes design and planning considerations of joint planners at the CCMD and JTF levels.


- Capability Development in Support of Comprehensive Approaches: Transforming International Civil- Military Interactions, NATO, December 2011. This NATO publication explores the ever-changing world of international civil- military interaction in an effort to develop comprehensive approaches to joint operations. This is a useful design template for joint stability ops planning within a “comprehensive approach.”

Stability Functions – References for Each Sector: Security Function: 13. Security Force Assistance Planner’s Guide, JCIFSA, 14 February 2008. (Revised Draft available, dated May 2014). This is a valuable handbook for joint planners as it includes both SFA and security sector reform. The current (2008) version is being revised with improved tools for planning, situational awareness and baseline assessment considerations. 14. The American Military Advisor: Dealing with Senior Foreign Officials in the Islamic World, PKSOI and USAWC Strategic Studies Institute, August 2008. This short monograph written by a career Foreign Service Officer describes the roles and challenges for US military advisors, specifically in Islamic countries. It includes valuable insights into cross-cultural understanding, leadership, character and intellectual ability in those who serve as military advisors to foreign leaders.

Supplemental Security References for Breadth and Depth

- Protection of Civilians Military Reference Guide, PKSOI, January 2013. Protection of Civilians must be considered and integrated during all military operations, including peace support ops and major combat ops during armed conflict. Civilians are protected persons under international law, and parties to a conflict have a legal obligation to protect civilians from the conflicts effects. This is a vital consideration for joint stability ops planners when considering operational design.

- Special Report: The Link between DDR and SSR in Conflict-Affected Countries, USIP,

May 2010. This special report explains the links between DDR and SSR in regard to post-conflict operations, and highlights the importance of both as they complement each other in stopping violent conflict and preventing its return. Key sections discuss the challenges in implementing the two systems as well as recommendations implementation and success in future operations.

Governance Function: 15. Transitional Governance: From Bullets to Ballots, USIP, July 2003. Effective transitional governance is one of the most formidable challenges facing stabilization missions in war-torn, failed states. Peace can be sustained only when power is attained through political rather than violent means and when government institutions are legitimate. Key for planners are their analysis of challenges and imperative for civ-mil efforts during future operations. 16. Handbook for Military Support to Governance, Elections and Media, JFCOM, 11 February 2010. Prior to the publication by JFCOM of a series of stability function handbooks, the last comprehensive guide to military governance and transitional military authority was written in 1943. The Handbook was developed for use in Iraq and Afghanistan, and analyzes the challenges and efforts that joint forces are involved in as they rebuild governance and media


institutions, support election preparations, and provide advisors to national ministries and legislative committees. As with the other 4 handbooks in the series, it provides pre-doctrinal techniques and procedures for joint force planning and support to build legitimate governance and media. (Note: this Handbook is currently being maintained/updated for use by PKSOI)

Supplemental Governance References for Breadth and Depth

- Decentralization and Democratic Local Governance Programming Handbook, USAID, May 2000. This older handbook is still a very useful, practical guide for country-level planners who must develop decentralized and democratic local governance. Drawing on 15 years of USAID experience in post-Cold War democracy promotion and on four decades of municipal development work, it provides a conceptual framework, guidance for successful program development strategies, developing entry points and tactics for design and implementation, and mission monitoring and evaluation.

- “Guide to Rebuilding Governance in Stability Operations: A Role for the Military?” PKSOI, June 2009. This guide examines an intervening force’s role in creating a functional state that can deliver services effectively, is responsive and accountable to its citizens, and capable of assuring security. For each of these three areas, the guide summarizes key issues, trade-offs, and options for military planners on the restoration and rebuilding of government. Its recommendations are drawn from both from theory and the experiences of military and civilian practitioners in a variety of missions.

- “Establishing Good Governance in Fragile States through Reconstruction Projects:

Lessons from Iraq”. Global Economy and Development at Brookings. Working Paper 56, January 2013. This publication highlights the lessons learned from post- conflict Iraq in regard to the establishment of good, legitimate governance through reconstruction projects. This source highlights what went well and what failed miserably in Iraq; it also highlights the need for clear, intensive communications between donors and host government officials as well as the need for clear planning and design by the US government.

- The Government Assistance Center: A Vehicle for Transitioning to the Host Government, PKSOI, May 2011. This paper provides a new approach to developing legitimate governance through creating “government assistance centers” which are the nexus between governance assistance, rule of law development, and security sector reform within host nation assistance programs for the USG in an effort to build partner institutional capacity and transition efforts to a sovereign and stable host nation.

Humanitarian Assistance and Providing Emergency Essential Services: 17. Handbook for Military Assistance to Essential Services and Critical Infrastructure, JFCOM, 02 February 2010. This handbook outlines and provides approaches for planning and restoring services essential to sustain human life during stability operations (water, sanitation, transportation, medical, etc.), and the required physical and systems infrastructure needed to deliver such services. It provides analysis of joint force considerations and responsibilities in working alongside USAID, NGO and multinational actors, and provides planners insights on working with civil affairs and sustainment forces that are coordinating and supporting emergency services and restoration of critical infrastructure missions. (Note: this Handbook is currently being maintained/updated for use by PKSOI)


18. “Guidelines for Relations between US Armed Forces and Non-Governmental Humanitarian Organizations in Hostile or Potentially Hostile Environments,” by USIP and the DOD, 2007. These mutual developed guidelines by USIP, DoD and INTERACTION (as the representative of the U.S. humanitarian NGO community) are intended to facilitate interaction between DoD and U.S. based humanitarian relief efforts in hostile or potentially hostile environments. (For the purposes of these guidelines, such organizations are referred to as Non-Governmental Humanitarian Organizations, or NGHOs.) While the guidelines were developed between the Department of Defense (DOD) and Interaction, DOD intends to observe these guidelines in its dealings with the broader humanitarian assistance community.

Supplemental Governance References for Breadth and Depth - USAID Field Operations Guide, September 2005. The FOG contains information on

general responsibilities for disaster responders, formats and reference material for assessing and reporting on populations at risk, Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DART) organization and duty checklists, descriptions of OFDA stockpile commodities, general information related to disaster activities, information on working with the military in the field, and a glossary of acronyms and terms used by OFDA and other organizations with which OFDA works.

- ‘Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response,” UN Sphere Project, United Nations,

2011. The UN Humanitarian Charter and minimum standards reflect the determination of international and humanitarian agencies to improve both effectiveness of assistance through a practical framework for accountability. These are essential in dealing with response to humanitarian crises by establishing minimum-essential, common standards across responding agencies to preserve and safeguard populations affected by disaster.

Rule of Law and Civil Security/Policing: 19. Rule of Law Handbook, US Army Judge Advocate General, 2011. This Army Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) is a useful cross-service guide to assessing, developing and supporting rule of law efforts during integrated civil-military operations. It outlines ROL requirements and challenges as a basis for joint support civil capacity development.

Supplemental Rule of Law References for Breadth and Depth

- Handbook for Military Support to Rule of Law and Security Sector Reform, JFCOM, 13

June 2011. This handbook provides considerations and planning approaches for military support to rule of law development and security sector reform in post-conflict situations. Chapter 1 (Introduction and Overview), provides “Current Military Guidance to ROL Support” and integration into “Unified Actions”; Chapter III (Planning) provides key aspects of assessing and developing RoL support in joint stability operations. (Note: this Handbook is currently being maintained/updated for use by PKSOI)

- "Legal, Judicial and Administrative Reforms in Post-Conflict Societies: Beyond the Rule of Law Template." Journal of Conflict & Security Law 12, no. 1, Spring 2007. 65-93. This resource highlights the legal, judicial and administrative reforms necessary to construct successful post-conflict societies. This is a valuable source of information for joint planners who will need to consider ROL in their operational planning.


- United Nations Rule of Law Index. Website: www.un.org/en/ruleoflaw/index.shtml, Accessed 18 June 2015. Recurring assessment of international rule of law efforts, to include peacekeeping missions. Provides information on UN international rule of law publications.

Economic Stabilization: 20. “Handbook for Military Support to Economic Stabilization,” JFCOM, 27 February 2010. This handbook outlines the key concepts, principles and practices underlying joint force support to economic development. It addresses conducting a comprehensive economic assessment, employment and business generation, trade, agriculture, financial sector development and regulation, and legal transformation. It also discusses integration of short-term military efforts with USAID and other international partner economic recovery and development operations. (Note: this Handbook is currently being maintained/updated for use by PKSOI)

Supplemental Rule of Law References for Breadth and Depth

- A Guide to Economic Growth in Post-Conflict Countries, United States Agency for International Development, January 2009. This publication serves as the USAID’s guide to post-conflict economic development in war-torn regions. This guide is critical for the understanding of USAID operations, pay special attention to Chapter IV (Prioritizing and Timing) and Chapter IV (Infrastructure) as these chapters give insight to joint planners regarding USAID’s priorities and the mission that will most likely involve US military elements, respectively.

http://www.un.org/en/ruleoflaw/index.shtml


Lesson # ______ Date (Hours of Instruction) Lesson Authors: Faculty Instructor

Lesson ___: Stability in Joint Operations and Their Role in US Strategic Success Mode: Seminar We will strengthen U.S. and international capacity to prevent conflict among and within states…. Within state, the nexus of weak governance and widespread grievance allows extremism to take root, violent non-state actors to rise up, and conflict to overtake state structures. To meet these challenges, we will continue to work with partners and through multilateral organizations to address the root causes of conflict before they erupt and to contain and resolve them when they do.”

National Security Strategy, 2015

“Stability operations are a core U.S. military mission that the DoD shall be prepared to conduct and with proficiency equivalent to combat operations…. [DoD shall be prepared to} conduct stability activities throughout all phases of conflict and across the range of military operations, including in combat and non-combat environments … [that] may range from small-scale, short duration to large-scale, long duration.”

DoD Instruction 3000.05, 16 Sep 09 [The] United States will emphasize non-military means and military-to-military cooperation to address instability …. [and] be ready to conduct limited counterinsurgency and other stability operations if required, operating alongside coalition forces wherever possible. Accordingly, [they] will retain and continue to refine the lessons learned, expertise, and specialized capabilities that have been developed over the past ten years….

Defense Strategic Guidance, 2012 “Repeating an Afghanistan or an Iraq … is probably unlikely in the foreseeable future. What is likely though, even a certainty, is the need to work with and through local governments to avoid the next insurgency, to rescue the next failing state, or to head off the next humanitarian disaster….” Former SecDef Robert M. Gates

_________________________________ 1. Introduction. The purpose of this lesson is to present the integral principles and concepts that guide joint efforts to maintain or regain stability in areas of strategic interest to the United States. “Stability Operations,” i.e. integrated civilian and military operations to stabilize in countries and areas according to strategic direction provided by U.S. senior leaders, are not new. In fact, they have been an embedded and essential part of wars and conflicts where the United States have sought to ensure that the results of military operations to


deter or defeat adversaries can enable “conflict winning” changes in political, economic, and security conditions that sustain strategic success and prevent the return of future conflicts. However, the continued focus on short-term “decisive” operations has tended to obscure the point that sustainable success is not only in defeating the adversary’s military capabilities or removing violent threats, but also in conducting operations to stabilize and transform political and security conditions for long-term US success. Recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa have reinforced that we must balance short term actions to defeat with long term success in stability. Additionally, our experience over the last decade of increasing global security challenges have shown that the military must take an active role in designing, planning and conducting integrated civil-military action in areas dominated by violence and instability; our ability during contingency operations to conduct effective, enhanced interagency coordination have been critical to conducting focused military operations with capable, tailored forces that can establish essential conditions as well as enable interagency and multinational efforts essential to overall mission success. As such, we must be able to design and plan joint operations across the Range of Military Operations to both employ “decisive force” to defeat enemies and adversaries who threaten the U.S. and our allies, but also to employ “decisive forces,” that can accomplish and enable our strategic success even without the conduct of combat operations. This lesson provides the essential context for understanding why and how stability efforts are integrated into joint operations where strategic direction requires U.S. military operations to accomplish tasks beyond military defeat and destruction of our enemies. Additionally, the key points of this lesson provide the strategic and operational “so what” that illustrate why design and planning for the stability aspects of a joint operation are essential to ensuring the advantages gained by military operations can readily be combined with civilian efforts (by the USG, multinational partners and the host nation) to transform the conflict and attain lasting change in governance, security and economic areas that enable U.S. strategic success across the ROMO. By the conclusion of this lesson, our goal is to ensure your understanding of 1) the importance of maintaining, retaining and restoring stability in U.S. policy and strategy abroad, 2) why joint operations in conflict environments must include a balance of offense, defense and stability tasks that continue dynamically throughout all phases of a campaign/operation, and 3) how planning accomplished through integrated civil-military collaboration and cooperation are essential to synchronize and incorporate the elements of national power for overall US success. 2. Learning Objectives. To enable students to:

a. Understand U.S. policy and strategy that direct civilian and military efforts in

stability operations.

b. Understand how joint operations to stabilize are key elements of joint effectiveness across the ROMO.


c. Analyze the key elements of joint operating concepts and doctrine for stability

operations, and how these form the core principles behind integrated civilian – military design and planning.

3. Student Requirements.

a. Tasks. (1) Complete the required readings

(2) Be prepared to discuss the points to consider and assigned readings.

(3) Participate and contribute during assigned presentations/small group work

b. Required Readings.

(1) REVIEW (if already covered in the course)

a. Joint Publication (JP) 3-0, “Joint Operations,” 11 Aug 11; Chapter I,

Joint Fundamentals, pp 2-5; Chapter V, Joint Operations Across the Range of Military Operations (ROMO), pp 4-5, 35- 41, 50, and 59-64.

b. JP 5-0, Joint Operations Planning,” Chapter III, Operational Art and Design, pp 13-15 and 28-31.

(2) Strategic Guidance: a. National Security Strategy, February 2015, pp 9-11, 20, and 22-23.

https://www.whitehouse.govhttps://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf

b. Defense Strategy Guidance, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” January, 2012. pp i – ii, and pp 4-6. Accessed at http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf

(3) Theater Campaign Strategy for Combatant Commands (students will read one of the following based upon instructor guidance): a. Commander’s Posture Statement, United States Central

Command, 5 Mar 2015. Accessed at http://www.centcom.mil/en/about-centcom-en/commanders-posture-statement-en

https://www.whitehouse.govhttps/www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf

https://www.whitehouse.govhttps/www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2015_national_security_strategy.pdf

http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf

http://www.centcom.mil/en/about-centcom-en/commanders-posture-statement-en

http://www.centcom.mil/en/about-centcom-en/commanders-posture-statement-en


b. “Fact Sheet: USPACOM Strategy,” United State Pacific Command. Accessed at http://www.pacom.mil/AboutUSPACOM/USPACOMStrategy.aspx

c. US AFRICOM Brief, United States Africa Command, 2014. Review

slides 9 – 11 on Instability and Theater Campaign Concept. Accessed at http://www..africom.mil%2Fnewsroom%2Fdocument%2F23774%2Fafricom-command-brief-2014&ei=yRqPVZnnOcWs-QHWjo44&usg=AFQjCNEST6GziFeo4zKYkHirrP2g0pmiAA

(4) DoD Instruction 3000.05, “Stability Operations,” Office of the

Undersecretary for Defense (Policy), 16 Sep 09, pp 1-3.

(5) Joint Publications:

a. “Military Support to Stabilization, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction Operations Joint Operations Concept,” Version 2.0, December 2006, read pp i – vi, and scan pp vii – x.

b. JP 3-07, Stability Operations, 29 September 2011, Executive

Summary, pp vii – xi; Chapter I, read pp 1- 9 and 13-22, scan the remainder.

4. Supplemental Readings. For depth and breadth on policy, strategy and operations:

a. Taw, Jennifer Morrison. Mission Revolution. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2012. Analysis by a former RAND analyst that overviews the development of DoD and joint stability operations capabilities over the past two decades (Chapters 1-3).

b. Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction, USIP and PKSOI, 2009. This was produced as the “informal interagency guidelines” for stability operations by the US Army PKSOI and the US Institute for Peace. This provides an overview of the recurring principles for US government success in the planning, design and assessment of stability operations, based upon the analysis of a broad range of efforts over past decades.

c. 3D Planning Guide: Diplomacy, Development, Defense, USAID, DoS and

DOD, 31 July 2012 (Draft). This collaborative framework developed by DOD, USAID and DOS presents the common elements for planning amongst the 3D’s within an integrated USG effort. This publication provides valuable insights into the differing planning considerations and processes across USG element. This Guide is maintained in draft as a

http://www.pacom.mil/AboutUSPACOM/USPACOMStrategy.aspx


living document for continued discussion and development of cooperation across agencies.

d. Considerations for Mission Leadership in United Nations Peacekeeping

Operations, United Nations, 2010. This guidebook for civilian and military leaders in UN peacekeeping operations, includes perspectives on Integrated Planning, Assessment Tools, and Prioritization/ Sequencing

e. Joint Operations Across the ROMO:

1) Foreign Humanitarian Assistance, Joint Publication 3-29, 03 January

2014. FHA consists of overseas DOD activities to directly relieve or reduce human suffering, disease, hunger or privation. The JP focuses on military integration with other US and multinational partners.

2) Peace Operations, Joint Publication 3-07.3, 01 August 2012. These

operations include peacekeeping, peace building in post-conflict actions, peacemaking processes, conflict prevention, and peace enforcement; chapter 1 focuses on design and planning.

3) Foreign Internal Defense, Joint Publication 3-22, 12 July 2010.

Focuses on activities that support the host nation’s Internal Defense and Development Strategy with key stabilizing aspects. Pending the publication of JP 3-20, this pub also contains Security Cooperation as well.

4) Counterinsurgency Operations, Joint Publication 3-24, 22 November

2013. Comprehensive civ-mil efforts designed to simultaneously defeat and contain insurgency and address root causes. Focus of chapter 3 is on fundamentals of integrating civilian and joint operations to counter insurgencies.

5) Civil- Military Operations, Joint Publication 3-57, 11 September 2013.

Focuses on activities by designated civil affairs or other military forces that establish, maintain, influence, or exploit relationships with indigenous populations and institutions, to reestablish or maintain stability.

4. Points to Consider.

a. How do military stability operations play a major role in supporting USG policy and strategy success?

b. Why are stability operations undertaken across the ROMO and how do a

variety of joint operations (Foreign Humanitarian Assistance, Peace Ops, etc)


accomplish activities that support the success of the Combatant Commander’s Theater Strategy?

c. How do joint forces integrate their efforts with Interagency and international

community partners in stability operations to ensure USG success? d. How are stability considerations a key part of joint operations principles,

precepts and planning?

5. Relationship to Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Learning Areas. This lesson supports accomplishment of the following JPME-1 learning areas at the Service Intermediate-Level College Level:

a. Learning Area 1, d.

b. Learning Area 2, a, b. c

c. Learning Area 3, a, b, c, d, g

d. Learning Area 4, a, b

e. Learning Area 6, a, d.

6. Relationship to institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs), Enduring and Special Themes.

(TBD within Local/Service guidance)


Stability in Joint Operations and Their Role in US Strategic Success

FACULTY INSTRUCTOR LESSON GUIDE AND TIME SCHEDULE

Version 3, 28 Jun 15

1. Faculty Instructor Overview: The purpose of this lesson is to present the integral principles and concepts that guide joint efforts to maintain or regain stability in areas of strategic interest to the United States. Given our students’ extended experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, they should already have a depth and breadth of understanding on the challenges of establishing effective security, along with an appreciation that military efforts alone cannot create sustainable conditions for the host nation to gain and maintain stable governance and economic conditions that endure past our deployments. With much counterinsurgency experience already, the goal of this lesson is to expand student appreciation of how current and future military operations to “stabilize” are an integral part of joint operations conducted across the entire Range of Military Operations (ROMO), and an essential element of all phases of operations and campaigns. In all, just as in combat operations, stability operations are an essential element in conflict environments of creating and securing the favorable policy outcomes that frame the operational approach for operations and campaigns. In all, while threatening or using force can defeat adversaries and eliminate threats, stability operations enable the “strategic so-what” set forth in Strategic Direction to ensure conflict conditions are transformed that end violent conflict and effect the desired political change. 2. Lesson Objectives and Focus: Learning Objectives for this module are designed to enable students to:

a. Understand U.S. policy and strategy that direct civilian and military efforts in

stability operations.

b. Understand how joint operations to stabilize are key elements of joint effectiveness across the ROMO.

c. Analyze the key elements of joint operating concepts and doctrine for stability operations, and how these form the core principles behind integrated civilian – military design and planning.

Through a combination of instructor and student presentations and classroom discussion, success in this lesson would be that students fully comprehend:

1) The importance of maintaining, retaining and restoring stability in U.S. policy and strategy abroad,

2) Why joint operations in conflict environments must include a balance of

offense, defense and stability tasks that continue dynamically throughout all phases of a campaign/operation, and


3) How design and planning accomplished through integrated civil-military

collaboration are essential to synchronize and incorporate the elements of national power for overall US success. 3. Lesson Notes and Presentation: As noted many times over the last decade of war, U.S. military capabilities alone cannot create the conditions necessary for states and regions to prevent conflict as well as ensure order and stability in recovering from armed conflict. Stability operations by joint forces are an integral part of joint operations conducted across ROMO from security cooperation through contingency and major operations that accomplish the Combatant Commander’s Campaign Strategy. In conjunction with offensive and defensive operations designed to defeat adversaries, stability operations – with military and civilian activities integrated and synchronized throughout the pre-conflict, conflict, and post-conflict periods - are essential for creating and securing the favorable policy outcomes specified by Strategic Direction for the use of military forces. Stability operations, i.e. integrated civilian and military operations to stabilize countries and areas according to strategic direction provided by U.S. senior leaders, are not new. In fact, they have been an embedded and essential part of wars and conflicts where the United States have sought to ensure that the results of military operations to deter or defeat adversaries can enable “conflict winning” changes in political, economic, and security conditions that sustain strategic success and prevent the return of future conflicts. However, the continued focus on short-term “decisive” operations has tended to obscure the point that sustainable success is not only in defeating the adversary’s military capabilities or removing violent threats, but also in conducting operations to stabilize and transform the political and security conditions that support and enable long-term US success. Recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Africa have reinforced that we must balance short term actions to defeat with long term success in stability. Additionally, our experience over the last decade of increasing global security challenges have shown that the military must take an active role in designing, planning and conducting integrated civil-military action in areas dominated by violence and instability; our ability during contingency operations to conduct effective, enhanced interagency coordination have been critical to conducting focused military operations with capable, tailored forces that can establish essential conditions as well as enable interagency and multinational efforts essential to overall mission success. As such, we must be able to design and plan joint operations across the Range of Military Operations to both employ “decisive force” to defeat enemies and adversaries who threaten the U.S. and our allies, but also to employ “decisive forces,” that can accomplish and enable our strategic success even without the conduct of combat operations. This lesson provides the essential context for understanding why and how stability efforts are integrated into joint operations where strategic direction requires U.S. military operations to accomplish tasks beyond military defeat and destruction of our enemies. Additionally, the key points of this lesson provide the strategic and operational “so what” that enable students to understand why design and planning for the stability aspects of

Coordinating Draft (28 Jun 15) a joint operation are essential to maintain the advantages gained by military operations can readily be combined with civilian efforts (by the USG, multinational partners and the host nation) to transform the conflict and attain lasting change in governance, security and economic areas that enable U.S. strategic success across the ROMO. 4. Suggestions on Lesson Presentation: The lesson flows across three parts that build upon one another by framing the importance of stability to enduring U.S. interests abroad, followed by developing student understanding of the joint operating concept and doctrine for stability. These lay the foundation for student discussions and analysis of the principles underlying design and planning for a broad range of operations by the joint force, from ongoing shaping as part of the Combatant Commanders “theater strategy” through contingency operations that retain or restore stability. (NOTE: a slide deck to support presentation of each of these parts is provided at Tab _TBP_ ) This lesson is proposed as a combination of instructor presentation/facilitated discussion and student presentations for depth/breadth beyond the core lesson readings. Therefore, it is essential that students complete all readings in order to actively engage in discussion and achieve learning objectives. For those experienced in COIN in recent years, this lesson can provide the strategic context for many of their prior efforts; however, we cannot allow the discussion to dwell on past experiences and frustrations with interagency partnering – building upon and moving past these experiences to future efforts and solutions will be key. The proposed presentations will provide a lot of background and context, but we need to make sure discussions/critiques focus on joint challenges in design and planning along with interagency partners to achieve and maintain stability across host nation government and security efforts.

Part 1: Students will examine how “stability” is a focus of U.S. policy and strategy around which Country Teams and Combatant Commands conduct ongoing ‘stabilization” efforts through engagement, development and cooperation programs amongst our allies and partners. After course administration announcements, FI covers the learning objectives and talks through an overview of the lesson flow/key points. The FI then takes then reviews the joint definition of stability operations along with a discussion of the key elements that support and enable USG civilian programs to develop legitimate governance and its supporting institutions.

Begin with (or review if already covered in the course) the inter-relationship of Ends – Ways – Means construct as it applies to stability operations (slide provided). Key point here is to emphasize the relationship of:

o Maintaining or restoring “stability” as a policy objective (Ends) for ongoing USG efforts abroad through country-team efforts in steady-state and crisis

o Developing and implementing strategies for “stabilization” (Ways) on how best to accomplish integrated civilian-military efforts in the long-term, and

o Conducting planned, purposeful efforts to “stabilize” (Means) through integrated civilian programs and military operations.


Discussion then transition how stability is a continuing, ongoing policy interest for the U.S. government by discussing the key elements of stability included in the National Security Strategy (NSS) and Defense Strategic Guidance which emphasizes “Providing a Stabilizing Presence,” “Conduct of Stability and Counterinsurgency Operations,” and “Conduct Humanitarian, Disaster Relief and Other Operations.” Also, take time to clarify the most prevalent misperception that “we will no long do stability operations” that arises out of the statement about “not sizing for major post conflict operations”: the guidance notes that the probability (for now) is low that the U.S. will engage in large-scale, major post-conflict operations based on our mission – fatigue from the last decade, but it does not say that joint forces should not anticipate, design and prepare for such stability operations where the strategic and operational needs exist.

Discussion should then transition to DoD Instruction 3000.05 that emphasizes the Department’s support to USG efforts by 1) outlining SO importance and defining of how the department’s senior civilian leadership envisions the need to maintain balanced capabilities, i.e. “ proficiency equivalent to combat operations”; 2) recognizing that shortfalls will exist in civilian expeditionary capacity for stabilization efforts (given the stand-down of the Civilian Response Corps and Department of State’s leadership of the Interagency Management System under NSPD-44), and that military forces must be prepared to fill these capacity gaps in conflict environments where civilians cannot operate due to security concerns or lack sufficient numbers/capabilities, and 3) designates several capabilities areas where military forces must be prepared to fill gaps until USG, multinational or host nation capacity is sufficient for them to assume the lead (with or without continued military support).

Discuss how the Theater Strategy of the Combatant Commands support USG efforts through “Shaping” operations focused on “Stability” efforts through Engagement, Security Cooperation, and Deterrence (JP 3-0, pp I-11, V-18). Instructor will designate a CCMD theater strategy of their choice for students to examine (suggestion made in the sample directive provided), and lead discussion on how joint efforts to maintain stability are accomplished, and how these “Phase Zero” efforts then set the stage for stability efforts planned as part of crisis response, contingency (“named”) operations when needed to retain or restore stability within key regions/countries.

Part 2: Students will then examine stability joint operating concepts and doctrine for conducting operations to “stabilize” through integrated JIIM action. The focus for this section will be on comprehending why and how joint force capabilities are employed to “stabilize” to accomplish joint force commander intent for mission success.

Provide a brief overview of the JOC’s for Stability (Version 2, 2004) and Military Support to Stabilization, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction Operations (Version 2, 2006) that describe how future JFC’s accomplish stability as part of joint operations within a military campaign/operation (slide provided). Although these concepts are undergoing review and potential update in 2016 by the joint


proponent, they still provide relevant, overarching concepts for operations across a continuum from peace to crisis/conflict that assist partner nations that are “under severe stress or [who have] collapsed due to either natural or manmade disaster” because, quite simply, the problems of instability have not changed. The JOC also provides a vision for the student on the strategic problem, central idea behind, and operational “cases” where joint operations will take place to advance U.S. interests. (SO JOC, Executive Summary, and SSTRO JOC, pp i - v). Interesting point to highlight, is most of the current and potential contingency operations for the joint force fall within these categories, many of which do not involve direct combat ops. Also, many of the cases posited in 2004 in the SO JOC anticipated the threats we are facing today, such as widespread challenges to governance and stability in Libya, and the current ISIL threat which concept developers saw (amazingly enough) as the “most likely” case for future threats to stability and human security by 2014.

Based upon this operational context, students will then analyze the doctrine set forward in Chapter 1 of JP 3-07 “Stability Operations” that highlight the principles for joint operations to “stabilize.” Key here is to highlight that stability ops are not a specialized set of operations (planned by civilians, conducted by CA forces, etc), but an integral part of joint operations (as described in JP 3-0) just the same as offense and defense; thus, our focus is that we conduct joint operations with specific activities and tasks that are designed and planned to “stabilize.”

o Review of points from JP 3-0 that outline SO as a “broad series of

operations” rather than a specific type (such as NEO) conducted across the ROMO (JP 3-0, Chapter II and III). Also highlight that it is not just a phase (IV) of joint ops, but a part of all phases of a joint operation

o Review the set of principles and precepts guide the stability aspects of joint operations. For example, the “Principles of Joint Operations” and “Precepts” (JP 3-0, pp I – 2 to 3, and JP 3-07, pp I -14 to 18) apply, and highlight how some of these (Unity, Legitimacy, Perseverance, etc) are especially important in stability efforts. Also highlight how several of the Common Operating Precepts are key in stability areas as well.

o Building upon this discussion, then highlight the key principles from JP 3-07 that link back to ensuring military operations accomplish and support USG success, such as “Enable Political Settlements” and ” Maintaining Legitimacy” that apply across civilian and military efforts.

o Finally, highlight how several stability ops concepts are integrated with other joint processes. For example, conducting conflict analysis and collaborating with Country Team civilian counterparts involved in conflict analysis (such as USAID’s Conflict Assessment Framework) can improve the clarity and utility of the Intelligence functions/Staff’s JIPOE and PMESII analysis. Also, maintaining a focus ensuring “conflict transformation” occurs (so that governance and security reform challenges are addressed) and on starting with the host nation’s needs and capacity to change in mind ensure that military forces are contributing to overall success, and informs when conflict termination is possible (without disabling USG long-term success).


Part 3: Finally, students will discuss and analyze how these concepts apply to joint operations conducted across a variety of operations across the ROMO, and not just as a follow-on to major combat operation in post-conflict (“Phase IV”). In the final part of the lesson, the FI will lead the discussion on how joint operations balance offense, defense and stability components across all phases, and how missions across the ROMO include “various military missions, tasks and activities conducted … in coordination with other elements of national power” to accomplish and support key efforts to “stabilize.”

Begin with a review of the military operations that joint forces must accomplish across the ROMO from peace to war, and highlight that the definition of “stability operations” is different – that it is “an umbrella term” for a variety of joint efforts that build and/or reinforce partner capacity during ongoing “shape” efforts as part of the combatant commander’s theater strategy, and as elements of mission success in some (but not all) of the joint operations listed. The slide provided will support this discussion, with highlights on the types of operations involving stability tasks/activities. (JP 3-0, pp V-4 to 5, 35 – 38)

Continue the discussion on the three major areas of focus for joint efforts to “stabilize” across the ROMO – 1) to “maintain stability” during ongoing operations to accomplish shaping as part of the theater strategy; 2) to “retain stability” as part of integrated civilian-military efforts where governance and security institutions are becoming fragile or potentially failing, and 3) to “restore stability” where state failure has caused the loss of governance, services and security areas formerly under its control. (NOTE: Slides supplied supports this discussion.)

Use the slides to discuss the these three areas across the ROMO and stability activities/tasks highlighted in the various mission sets; challenge the students to analyze how military efforts might support USG goals with respect to the host nation, and defeat or neutralize threats by adversaries, both traditional and irregular.

Lesson Summary and Transition: Conclude the lesson with a review of the major

learning points for the lesson, and highlight the key contributions that the joint military action make to US strategic success, supported through the Combatant Commander’s regional efforts. Suggest that instructors use the “5 Points” slide to summarize the key points on how the Ends-Ways-Means are linked from national down to operational/tactical levels to shape and ensure a more stable international environment through supporting and enabling security success by our key partners abroad. 4. Readings and Potential Student Presentations: Required readings are focused to give the students an understanding of the stability aspects of joint design and planning elements, principles and processes, and how military and civilian efforts must be brought together as an integrated effort for joint and overall U.S. mission success.


If this is taught as a stand-alone lesson, have the students review the key elements of JP 3-0 and JP 5-0 that then set up how stability is an embedded part of joint operations, and utilizes the same principles, precepts, and processes as all other parts of joint operations. This then sets the stage for discussions of how best to integrate stability considerations and activities into these standing processes, and not conducting a separate stability ops planning process.

Several readings illustrate how stability and stabilization are key elements of US policy and strategy as outlined in the initial discussion on ensuring the balance of End-Way-Means. The selected portions of the NSS and DSG highlight the importance of maintaining or restoring stability as a key element of USG policy and strategy. In turn, this importance then set up the discussion of DODI 3000.05 on why stability is required to be of equal emphasis and importance to combat operations. Finally, the short excerpts of the key elements of our various Combatant Commands show how the national policy/strategy emphasis on stability is integrated into the various Theater Campaign Strategies.

The cornerstone readings for this lesson are DoD Instruction 3000.05, “Stability Operations”, and JP 3-07, “Stability Operations.

o The DoD instruction highlights that stability operations are of major importance to U.S. strategic success, and that DoD sees the success of these efforts of equal importance for design, planning and operations as our traditional core competencies of delivering decisive force. Therefore, to think in terms of assuming risk or handing these functions off to other civilian agencies while we focus on just a safe and secure environment does not meet DoD guidance.

o JP 3-07 illustrates the key concepts and principles behind stability operations, and how these are integrated into design and planning (Lesson 2) for integration by civilian and military participants. It also highlights and reinforces the discussion of joint operations that accomplish major efforts to stabilize across the ROMO.

Potential Student Presentations: If desired, in support Part 3 of the lesson the FI can assign a series of student presentations that focuses on how a variety of operations are focused on joint activities to “stabilize.” Students can be assigned to review the “executive summary” for a number of missions such as FHA, peace operations, FID, etc, and provide a brief summary for each of 1) the definition/focus of the type of operation, 2) the key operating and planning principles, and 3) their analysis of how these operations support the GCC’s efforts to maintain or retain stability. Each presentation should be no more than 10 minutes, and are intended to familiarize students with the broad range of capabilities and contributions that the joint force makes to ongoing USG stability efforts abroad.

Coordinating Draft (28 Jun 15) 5. Suggested Time Schedule (for presentation as a stand-alone lesson): the following schedule is based upon a 3 hour (180 minute) instruction period. Start – 50 min. After course admin, the Faculty Instructor (FI) overviews the lesson,

and then leads the discussion of stability as a key element of US ends – ways – means as accomplished through the interrelationship of policy, strategy and operations that accomplish our goals and objectives worldwide. The FI then leads the discussion of stability as a focus on national policy and strategy, and how the guidance by DoDI 3000.05 is intended to ensure adequate military capabilities to meet diverse U.S. requirement for both military force and responsive forces to meet U.S. need. Finally, discuss how strategic direction is incorporated into theater strategies by the combatant commands to ensure proactive regional stabilization efforts over time.

50-60 min Class break; transition to part 2 60-110 min Conduct Lesson Part 2; focus on the discussion of how joint

principles, precepts and elements of design include stability considerations, followed by a discussion of the unique aspects of stability that are balanced with offense and defense to accomplish overall mission success.

110 -120 min Class break; transition to part 3 120 - 170 min Conduct Lesson Part 3, with a focus on how joint operations

accomplish efforts to stabilize across the ROMO; integrate optional student presentations on 4-5 of the operations if desired, or FI can lead discussion of the key principles/planning considerations for each of these operations that pertain to stability operations.

170 -180 min Lesson synthesis of how stability is integrated into policy, strategy

and operations to achieve both joint and US objectives; preview next lesson in curriculum

6. Options – EMBEDDING PARTS INTO OTHER LESSON???


Lesson # ______ Date (Hours of Instruction) Lesson Authors: Faculty Instructor

Lesson ___: Design and Planning for Stability in Joint Operations Mode: Seminar “Stability operations are a core U.S. military mission that the DoD shall be prepared to conduct and with proficiency equivalent to combat operations…. [DoD shall be prepared to} conduct stability activities throughout all phases of conflict and across the range of military operations, including in combat and non-combat environments … [that] may range from small-scale, short duration to large-scale, long duration.”

DoD Instruction 3000.05, 16 Sep 09

“In practice, immediate responsibility for conquered or liberated territory devolves upon the military commander on the ground. It remains there until other agencies of the government, international organizations and host government assume that responsibility. Again, this often means that the military commander as the person controlling the key resources will have to continue exercising the responsibility long after the State Department and other agencies have arrived and begun to function.

John T. Fishel, in Liberation, Occupation and Rescue: War Termination and Desert Storm, 1992.

1. Introduction. The purpose of this lesson is to understand how military efforts to “stabilize” are integrated into joint design and planning process. Key here is that stability is not planned for as a separate or specialized operation; just like offense and defense are developed to defeat enemy efforts, stability is an embedded part of joint planning that focuses on accomplishing or supporting interagency efforts to establish sustainable political and security conditions that accomplish U.S. strategic ends.

As outlined previously, stability operations are an integral part of joint operations conducted across the Range of Military Operations (ROMO), ranging from security cooperation through crisis/contingency to major operations that continuously accomplish the Combatant Commander’s Campaign Strategy. In each of these cases, military actions are designed and synchronized with civilian plans and programs to ensure partner national and multinational/coalition success during pre-conflict, conflict, and post-conflict periods. As commanders and their staffs conduct operational design, they employ the same principles and processes used for analyzing the need for and integration of other joint functions and actions. For example, in utilizing the principles of operational design, planners seek to analyze the Operating Environment (OE) in order to understand not just the enemy, but to also integrate “conflict analysis” (conducted by civilian agencies such as DoS and USAID) that reveal the reasons behind the ongoing conflict threatening host nation stability. In turn, this OE analysis delineates decisive


points that inform the development of “lines of effort” that (just like Lines of Operations) orient coordinated civil-military actions in time, space and purpose to ensure overall mission success. Additionally, some Principles are especially important in designing efforts to stabilize, such as ensuring unity (between JIIM actors), legitimacy (for host nation government as well as our mission), restraint (for careful and disciplined action) and perseverance (to achieve conflict transformation over time).

This same approach for integrating stability considerations applies during the conduct of the JFC’s Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP). As the planning staff employs the operational approach directed by the commander, they include stability considerations into mission analysis, COA development and war-gaming in order to ensure that offense and defense operations against enemies and adversaries. These efforts ensure that joint activities and tasks set the conditions to strengthen host nation legitimacy and enable “conflict transformation” through complementary changes in political, economic, and security conditions that enable sustainable, stable conditions that enable the transition back to or continued success of civilian programs (without continued military ops). In joint operations where combat and delivering force may not be the primary focus, effectively employing stability considerations during JOPP to define security, control and support tasks required to support U.S. disaster response, peace operations, and foreign internal defense are key elements developing a suitable, feasible and acceptable plan for joint support to enable civilian success. Finally, whenever the JOPP produces a detailed, 5 phase plan (as outlined in JP 5-0), preparing for and conducting operations to stabilize are included across all phases of the operation, and not just confined to Phase IV. In doing so, planners ensure that collaboration and coordination with interagency partners are focused effectively, strengthening host nation capacity and leadership in key areas over the course of the operation, and that joint force capabilities are requested and ready to execute operations to stabilize at essential events where instability may arise.

Finally, while joint forces provide the security upon which stability can be built, they also lead efforts across a number of other stability sector where civilian capacity is not available or cannot operate due to security conditions. Once conditions are set, these same forces provide supporting capabilities (as requested) that are essential for these civilian agencies success across sectors. Joint force planners must understand the goals, tasks and actors working across each of these sectors to anticipate and conduct leading or supporting efforts effectively. Through the use of a short table-top exercise (TTX), workgroups will brief the seminar (class) on their analysis of the key factors for success in their assigned “stability function” and present their views on how to integrate success in their sector with those of others as part of an integrated USG approach.

By the conclusion of this lesson, our goal is to ensure that you understand 1) how stability principles and considerations are integrated into operational design and planning 2) how the JOPP can employed to ensure a balance of offensive, defense and stability efforts across all phases of a campaign/operation, and 3) the key elements of


how the 5 stability functions (and associated civilian-led “sectors”) can be integrated for civil-military effectiveness for overall US mission success. 2. Learning Objectives. To enable students to:

a. Understand how operational design principles for stability are used in the

development of an operational approach for joint operations. b. Analyze how stability planning concepts can be applied during the Joint

Operations Planning Process (JOPP) to develop the stability activities and tasks required across the 5 phases of a joint operation.

c. Analyze the key elements of the 5 stability functions outlined in JP 3-07,

and how staffs can develop plans to accomplish tasks and activities that contribute to USG success in transforming and eliminating the underlying problems that cause violent conflict and undermine legitimate governance.

d. Understand how conflict analysis conducted by interagency partners can

be linked with ongoing JIPOE analysis of the conditions within the operational environment to support design and planning.

3. Student Requirements.

a. Tasks. 1) Complete the required readings

2) Be prepared to discuss the points to consider and assigned readings.

3) Participate and contribute during assigned presentations/small group work

b. Required Readings.

1) Review (if already covered in the course) Joint Publication (JP) 5-0, “Joint

Operation Planning,” 11 Aug 11; sections on Operational Design, pp III 1 – 18, and 28 – 31, and the JOPP, Chapter IV.

2) DoD Instruction 3000.05, “Stability Operations”, Office of the Undersecretary

for Defense (Policy), 16 Sep 09, pp 1-3 3) JP 3-07, “Stability Operations,” 29 Sep 11, Chapter II on “Design and

Planning,” pp II-1 to 32 and Chapter III on “Stability Functions,” pp 1-3.


4) Scan your individual Service Doctrine for considerations in stability planning (Example - for Army: Army Doctrinal Reference Publications (ADRP) 3-07, Stability, 13 Feb 14, Chapter 4, “Planning”.

5) “Integrating Civilian Agencies in Stability Operations, RAND Rpt MG801,

2009, pp 91 – 110.

6) Table Top Exercise: Integrating Stability Into Joint Design and Planning. a. Read Exercise Directive and review slide deck (Template for brief)

b. Complete Readings for your assigned workgroup from JP 3-07,

Stability Operations, Chapter III, “”Stability Operations Functions”:

i. Security: pp 4-17 ii. Humanitarian Assistance: pp 18-27 iii. Economics and Infrastructure: pp 28-40 iv. Rule of Law (and Policing): pp 41-47 v. Governance and Participation: pp 47-59

4. Supplemental Readings. For depth and breadth on design and planning:

a. Guiding Principles for Stabilization and Reconstruction, USIP and PKSOI,

2009. This was produced as the “informal interagency guidelines” for stability operations by the US Army PKSOI and the US Institute for Peace. This provides an overview of the recurring principles for US government success in the planning, design and assessment of stability operations, based upon the analysis of a broad range of efforts over past decades.

b. 3D Planning Guide: Diplomacy, Development, Defense, USAID, DoS and

DOD, 31 July 2012 (Draft). This collaborative framework developed by DOD, USAID and DOS presents the common elements for planning amongst the 3D’s within an integrated USG effort. This publication provides valuable insights into the differing planning considerations and processes across USG elements. This Guide is maintained in draft as a living document for continued discussion and development of cooperation across agencies.

c. Considerations for Mission Leadership in United Nations Peacekeeping

Operations, United Nations, 2010. This guidebook for civilian and military leaders in UN peacekeeping operations, includes perspectives on Integrated Planning, Assessment Tools, and Prioritization/ Sequencing.

d. Conflict Assessment Framework Version 2.0, USAID, June 2012. This

document is the USAID’s framework for assessing local conflict dynamics; valuable for situational awareness with USAID, and in conflict transformation planning.


e. Joint Operations; each of the following manuals has a chapter on “planning”:

1. Foreign Humanitarian Assistance, Joint Publication 3-29, 2014.

2. Peace Operations, Joint Publication 3-07.3, 2012.

3. Foreign Internal Defense, Joint Publication 3-22, 2010

4. Counterinsurgency Operations, Joint Publication 3-24, 2013.

5. Civil- Military Operations, Joint Publication 3-57, 2013.

e. Security Function:

1. Security Force Assistance Planner’s Guide, JCIFSA, 14 February 2008. (Revised Draft available, dated May 2014). This is a valuable handbook for joint planners as it includes both SFA and security sector reform. The current (2008) version is being revised with improved tools for planning, situational awareness and baseline assessment considerations.

2. The American Military Advisor: Dealing with Senior Foreign Officials in the Islamic World, PKSOI and US Army War College SSI, August 2008. This monograph written by a career Foreign Service Officer describes the roles and challenges for US military advisors, specifically in Islamic countries. It includes valuable insights into cross-cultural understanding, leadership, character and intellectual ability in those who serve as military advisors to foreign leaders.

f. Governance Function:

1. Transitional Governance: From Bullets to Ballots, USIP, July 2003. Effective transitional governance is one of the most formidable challenges facing stabilization missions in war-torn, failed states. Peace can be sustained only when power is attained through political rather than violent means and when government institutions are legitimate. Key to understanding civ-mil integration and conflict transformation.

2. Handbook for Military Support to Governance, Elections and Media, JFCOM, 11 February 2010. The Handbook was developed for use in Iraq and Afghanistan, and analyzes the challenges and efforts that joint forces face in efforts to rebuild governance and media institutions, support election preparations, and provide advisors to national ministries and legislative committees.

g. Humanitarian Assistance Function:

1. Handbook for Military Assistance to Essential Services and Critical Infrastructure, JFCOM, 02 February 2010. Provides analysis of joint force


considerations and responsibilities in working alongside USAID, NGO and multinational actors, in providing emergency services and critical infrastructure. 2. “Guidelines for Relations between US Armed Forces and Non-Governmental Humanitarian Organizations in Hostile or Potentially Hostile Environments,” by USIP and the DOD, 2007. These mutual developed guidelines by USIP, DoD and INTERACTION (as the representative of the U.S. humanitarian NGO community) are intended to facilitate interaction between DoD and U.S. based humanitarian relief efforts in hostile or potentially hostile environments.

h. Rule of Law Function: Rule of Law Handbook, US Army Judge Advocate General, 2011. This is a useful cross-service guide to assessing, developing and supporting rule of law efforts during integrated civil-military operations. It outlines ROL requirements and challenges as a basis for joint planning for utilizing military forces to support civil capacity development.

i. Economic Stabilization Function: “Handbook for Military Support to Economic

Stabilization,” JFCOM, 27 February 2010. This handbook outlines the key concepts, principles and practices underlying joint force support to economic development. It addresses conducting a comprehensive economic assessment, employment and business generation, trade, agriculture, financial sector development and regulation, and legal transformation. It also discusses integration of short-term military efforts with USAID and other international partner economic recovery and development operations.

4. Points to Consider/For Discussion:

a. As the commander and staff develop the operational approach to

defeating adversaries, what are the challenges and potential actions that must be taken to stabilize (i.e. establish local, sustainable conditions) through effective security, control and support efforts by joint forces?

b. As we develop our military plans for stabilizing, what are the corresponding civilian tasks undertaken by Country Team to stabilize and build partner capacity across governance, economic and security to create sustainable, stable conditions as a basis for future long-term reconstruction and development?

c. How do actions and activities for theater security cooperation during

“phase “0” set the stage for success in stability operations throughout future operations? d. Based upon the operational approach, how does the joint force deploy,

develop and employ required stability capabilities over the course of the operation? Are there areas where conventional and existing capabilities must be supplemented by new, tailored capabilities?


e. While we normally focus on stability as a part of post-combat operations, how do some of the principles and approaches outlined here apply to planning for stability in joint operations that may not involve combat in a crisis environment (per DoD 3000.05)?

5. Relationship to Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Learning Areas. This lesson supports accomplishment of the following JPME-1 learning areas at the Service Intermediate-Level College Level:

a. Learning Area 2, a, b. c

b. Learning Area 3, a, e, f

c. Learning Area 4, b, f, h

d. Learning Area 6, b, d 6. Relationship to institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs), Enduring and Special Themes.

(TBD within Local/Service guidance)


LESSON _____ IN CLASS EXERCISE Date (Times) Lesson Author: _____

TABLE TOP EXERCISE: “INTEGRATING STABILITY IN JOINT DESIGN AND PLANNING” Lead Instructor: ________ Mode: In Class Exercise 1. Introduction: One of the most important things in developing the stability aspects of both the operational approach and plan is to “start with the end in mind” - with a reasonably clear understanding between military and interagency partners of how we collectively define “success” across the stability sectors/functions and how these efforts interrelate with one another to achieve mission success in maintaining or restoring stability. This table top exercise (TTX) emphasizes the strategic and operational importance of starting with a workable picture of what joint operations are planned to achieve as part of a collaborative and integrated effort with interagency counterparts at the Country Team level, and how we will include these efforts into the operations phases to attain joint and U.S. mission accomplishment over time.

Today’s exercise will center on developing an operational approach for integrating each of five stability functions across the 5 phases of a notional operations plan. The exercise builds upon class discussions of the key elements of how to integrate stability into design and planning, and provides participants an opportunity to analyze and discuss how joint military activities across the five functions - security, humanitarian assistance, economics and infrastructure, rule of law/policing, and governance and participation – are developed and employed over the course of a joint operation. Finally, participants will briefly analyze how success in any one area (such as security) cannot ensure overall success, and how each of these functions both supports and is supported by progress and success in other areas.

2. Conduct of the Exercise. Prior to class, class members will form into 5 groups that will each focus on analyzing and preparing presentations on their assigned stability function area according to the format provided. During class, groups will brief their analysis and how efforts in their areas can be integrated into the phases of the operational plan. The exercise will conclude with an instructor led discussion of how these areas relate to one another to achieve overall mission success in stabilizing conditions within the JOA, and the practical challenges of integrating military and civilian efforts.

a. Part 1 - Preparation for the Exercise: Prior to the class meeting, assigned groups will complete both the core readings for the lesson and their assigned reading for their function in preparation for meeting with other group members to conduct analysis. Workgroups will analyze different stability sectors with respect to the following factors:


1) Operational Success: For the assigned sector, how do you define “success”? What are our objectives, and are there potential differences in civilian and military views that must be accounted for and reduced/mitigated over time?

2) Necessary Conditions: In achieving success in a given sector, we will see certain conditions evolving as we transform the environment of violent conflict into one of sustainable stability. What are the general conditions that will be in place when we have achieved our desired objectives? What are the visible indicators that our mission is succeeding for a given sector?

3) Assessments: Within a functional area, there are many ways of determining

the progress that we are making and whether our actions (along with those of others working in the same area) are working together or along-side one another to achieve conflict transformation that not only ends but prevents the return of violent conflict. While there are many possible indicators, what are the top 5 criteria that we should assess, and what we should be looking at in terms of key events, changes, etc, in order to “see” success occurring over time?

4) Anticipated Challenges: What are the top 2-3 challenges anticipated in the given sector for achieving and assessing success?

Workgroups will provide their analysis using the slide deck provided, and post the results to the course portal/website NLT ___(DTG)___. Prior to class, each group should review the briefs by other groups in order to develop views (for classroom discussion) on how their assigned function can work in conjunction with others for overall success.

b. Part 2 - In Class Table Top Exercise: Following discussions on stability in operational design and planning, each workgroup will lead the class through an analysis and discussion of their assigned “stability sector”; each group will have 15 minutes to present an overview of their assigned sector, to include questions and discussion. Groups should utilize the key points from the assigned readings (below), but are also encouraged to provide class members other readings/points that expand upon the required readings.

c. Exercise Wrap-up: We will conclude the class with a discussion of the potential challenges of integrating our joint military efforts into the Country Team’s stability sectors as part of the U.S. overall strategic framework within a JIIM environment. The seminar will also discuss the challenges of accurately interpreting and reporting success across the broad range of stability sectors.

3. Learning Objectives.

a. Analyze the key elements of success across the stability functions, and develop an understanding of how these elements can be combined into the operational approach for the joint operation.


b. Analyze how operations and activities across each of the stability functions are included and integrated into each phase of a (notional) joint operations plan.

c. Analyze the challenges of assessing success, and consider how intelligence and

information efforts must be focused to constantly assess and provide analysis on accomplishing desired outcomes (measures of effectiveness).

d. Evaluate the challenges of collaborating and integrating military efforts with

interagency/Country Team and multinational efforts in a complex operating environment. 4. Required Readings. Participants wil complete the required “common readings,” and

specific readings based upon group assignments shown below: a. Read Exercise Directive and review slide deck (Template for 3 slide brief)

b. Complete Readings for your assigned workgroup from JP 3-07, Stability

Operations, Chapter III, “”Stability Operations Functions”:

Group 1 - Security: pp 4-17 Group 2 - Humanitarian Assistance: pp 18-27 Group 3 - Economics and Infrastructure: pp 28-40 Group 4 - Rule of Law (and Policing): pp 41-47 Group 5 - Governance and Participation: pp 47-59

5. Points to Consider:

a. What are the objectives and challenges of restoring legitimate, effective governance and security in a conflict environment over time? How do efforts in other functional areas support success in these areas?

b. How does success in each of the sectors depend upon progress in other areas to

provide sustainable success? c. What are the challenges of assessing success in each of the sectors? Are we

focused on changing the environment, or on measuring how hard we are working?

d. Are we working towards the same ends as the host nation? What are the challenges of ensuring we are working towards mutual ends that are acceptable, supportable and sustainable for the institutions whose success we are attempting to enable?

De elopi g the Operatio al Approa h: _ Fu tio ___

Necessary Conditions: endstates that must

e in pla e at su ess ?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

If at the o lusio of our efforts e took a pi ture of su ess, hat ould it look like/ hat ould e i it?

O er ti e, hat ill e look for /ho ill e k o e are ei g effe ti e i uildi g to ard o erall su ess ?

Objectives - success in this stability function? Why is this critical to mission success?

Assessing Success: what will we be looking

for in these areas to indicate success?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Key Tasks and Linkages

Relationship to Other Sectors (Supported by? Supporting to?)

- Civil Security: ?

- Governance?

- Economics?

- Social Well-Being?

Ho do our efforts relate to those of the other se tors? Ho are e oth supporti g to others efforts, hile e are supported/enabled in our sector by others efforts?

Key Tasks (Top 5)

-

-

-

-

-

What are the joint tasks/activities that are critical to overall strategic and operational success?

Challenges, Partner and Adversaries

• Challenge 1

• Challenge 2:

• Challenge 3:

What will stand in our way of achieving our objectives/mission? Whose efforts must we overcome, and whose

support (across the interagency/international community) are key to obtain to give us a arked ad a tage ?

Which is the

most

dangerous?

Why?


Stability in Design and Planning for Joint Operations

FACULTY INSTRUCTOR LESSON GUIDE AND TIME SCHEDULE

Version 3, 28 Jun 15

1. Faculty Instructor Overview: The purpose of this lesson is to understand how military efforts to “stabilize” are integrated into the joint design and planning process. Key here is that stability is not planned for as a separate or specialized operation; just as offense and defense are developed to defeat enemy efforts, stability is an embedded part of joint planning that focuses on accomplishing or supporting interagency efforts to establish sustainable political and security conditions that accomplish U.S. strategic ends. In each of the JPME-I programs, both operational design and planning using the JOPP process are core elements of instruction. This lesson plan is designed to supplement and support both these areas of instruction by providing perspectives on how offensive and defensive operations to defeat enemies (our core competency and traditional focus as military forces) is combined with stability efforts to develop a balanced, integrated joint plan (with our civilian partners) that contributes significantly to U.S. policy and strategy success. As you will notice in the following presentation plan, this lesson is designed to be taught either as a stand-alone lesson, or to use the various parts as embedded pieces for other lessons that present the art and science of joint design and planning. For the later approach, the three parts of the lesson below can be readily included in lessons focused on 1) operational design/developing the operational approach, 2) the Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP), and 3) COA development/phasing during the JOPP. In all, both these approaches support enhancing student understanding of stability aspects of design and planning, and can be tailored to institutional needs based upon course director/instructor preference, curriculum flow and time available, and the best fit for student learning. 2. Lesson Objectives and Focus: Learning Objectives for stability in design and planning are designed to enable students to:

a. Understand how operational design principles for stability are used in the

development of an operational approach for joint operations.

b. Analyze how stability planning concepts can be applied during the Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP) to develop the stability activities and tasks required across the 5 phases of a joint operation.

c. Analyze the key elements of the 5 stability functions outlined in JP 3-07, and

how staffs can develop plans to accomplish tasks and activities that contribute to USG success in transforming and eliminating the underlying problems that cause violent conflict and undermine legitimate governance.


d. Understand how conflict analysis conducted by interagency partners can be linked with ongoing JIPOE analysis of the conditions within the operational environment to support design and planning.

Through a combination of instructor and student presentations and classroom discussion, success in this lesson would be that students fully comprehend:

1) How stability principles and considerations are integrated into operational design and developing the operational approach,

2) How including stability considerations during the conduct of the JOPP can

ensure a balance of offensive, defense and stability efforts across all phases of a campaign/operation, and

3) How the key elements of the 5 stability sectors can be integrated across all

phases to enable civil-military effectiveness and overall US mission success 3. Lesson Notes and Presentation: As outlined previously, stability operations by joint forces are an integral part of joint operations conducted across the Range of Military Operations (ROMO), and throughout security cooperation and contingency operations that accomplish the Combatant Commander’s Campaign Strategy. In each of these cases, military actions are designed and synchronized with civilian plans and programs to ensure partner national and multinational/coalition success during pre-conflict, conflict, and post-conflict periods. As commanders and their staffs conduct operational design, they employ the same principles and processes used for analyzing the need for and integration of other joint functions and actions. For example, in utilizing the principles of operational design, planners use these principles to understand not just the enemy, but also focus on conflict analysis (i.e. the focus of civilian agencies such as DoS and USAID) that reveal the reasons behind the ongoing conflict threatening host nation stability, and delineate decisive points that inform the development “lines of effort” that orient coordinated civil-military actions in time, space and purpose to ensure overall mission success. Additionally, some joint principles are especially important in designing efforts to stabilize, such as ensuring unity (between JIIM actors), legitimacy (for host nation government as well as our mission), restraint (for careful and disciplined action) and perseverance (to achieve conflict transformation over time).

This same approach for integrating stability considerations applies during the conduct of the JFC’s Joint Operations Planning Process (JOPP). As the planning staff employs the operational approach directed by the commander, they include stability considerations into mission analysis, COA development and war-gaming in order to ensure that the results of offense and defense operations against enemies and adversaries are optimized and retained. These efforts ensure joint activities and tasks set the conditions to strengthen host nation legitimacy and enable “conflict transformation” through complementary changes in political, economic, and security conditions that enable sustainable, stable conditions that enable the transition to, or continued success of, civilian programs (without continued military ops). In joint operations where combat and delivering force may not be the primary focus, effectively

Coordinating Draft (28 Jun 15) employing stability considerations during JOPP to define security, control and support tasks required to support U.S. disaster response, peace operations, and foreign internal defense are key in developing a suitable, feasible and acceptable plan for joint support to enable civilian success. Finally, whenever the JOPP produces a detailed, 5 phase plan (as outlined in JP 5-0), preparing for and conducting operations to stabilize are included across all phases of the operation, and not just confined to Phase IV. In doing so, planners ensure that collaboration and coordination with interagency partners are focused effectively strengthening host nation capacity and leadership in key areas over the course of the operation, and that joint force capabilities are requested and ready to execute operations to stabilize at essential events where instability may arise.

Finally, while joint forces provide the security upon which stability can be built, they also lead efforts across a number of other stability sector where civilian capacity is not available or cannot operate due to security conditions. Once conditions are set, these same forces provide supporting capabilities (as requested) that are essential for civilian agencies success across all stability functions/sectors. Joint force planners must understand the goals, tasks and actors working across each of these sectors to anticipate and conduct leading or supporting efforts effectively. Through the use of a short table-top exercise, workgroups will brief the seminar (class) on their analysis of the key factors for success in their assigned stability sector and present their views on how to integrate success in their sector with those of others as part of an integrated USG approach.

In building upon their understanding of the importance of military contributions toward maintaining or rebuilding a stability as part of US strategic success abroad, this lesson highlights the practical aspects of how commanders and staffs work together to design and plan joint operations that both employ “decisive force” to defeat enemies and adversaries who threaten the U.S. and our allies, but also to employ “decisive forces,” that can accomplish and enable our strategic success even without the conduct of combat operations.

As such, the lesson will focus on how the operational design process includes stability considerations in understanding the OE and problems underlying violent conflict, and developing a commander’s vision of the desired outcomes and operational approach for using military operations to transform conflict and attain lasting change in governance, security and economic areas. Second, the lesson will focus on how the Commander’s operational approach is then put into practical, actionable steps through the Joint Operational Planning Process (JOPP) to produce a plan that balances offense, defense and stability to achieve maximum effectiveness as part of an integrated civ-mil effort. Suggestions on Lesson Presentation: This lesson will focus on the practical challenges of including stability principles and functions into design and planning for operations ranging from “shaping” as part of the Combatant Commanders theater strategy through contingency operations that retain or restore stability. The lesson is presented in three parts that build upon one another, beginning with developing student appreciation for how stability considerations are an embedded part of the principles for joint operations and the operational design process. Second, based upon the

Coordinating Draft (28 Jun 15) operational approach developed, students will then analyze how the staff then include the commander’s vision for mission success in joint efforts to stabilize throughout the JOPP to develop joint plans. Finally, the lesson will focus on understanding the key elements and tasks for the 5 stability functions, and how they might be included across the 5 phases of a joint operation or campaign. (NOTE: a slide deck to support presentation of each of these parts is provided at Tab ___) This lesson is proposed as a combination of instructor presentation/facilitated discussions and student presentations on their analysis of the stability sectors. Therefore, it is essential that students complete all readings along with their analysis of their assigned stability sectors (for group presentations as part of the Table Top Exercise suggested in Part 3) in order to actively engage in discussion and achieve learning objectives. For those frustrated with the lack of interagency participation at the local levels during in recent years, we cannot dwell on past frustrations with interagency teaming – we must build upon and move past these experiences to analyze how the process should run to design and plan effectively together. The principles and included parts of the JOPP are important, but we need to make sure discussions/critiques focus how we can bring out design and planning efforts together with interagency partners to achieve and maintain stability through more effective host nation government and security efforts.

Part 1: Integrating Stability into Operational Design. In the first part of the lesson, we will begin with a brief review of the key points on the importance of Stability in joint operations that support U.S. policy and strategy success abroad (slide provided) from the prior lesson. This sets the strategic “so what” for effective design and planning for operations across the ROMO, and reinforces that Operational Design must focus also on factors above the level of simple military employment to understanding factors and interpreting guidance on how military employment can play a critical role in our broad national interests and policy accomplishment.

Stability in Joint Design: after discussing several of the Joint Operating Principles that have special importance in stability operations such as legitimacy, perseverance, etc (JP 3-07, Chapter II), use the supplied slide that expands upon how stability considerations are part of the Joint Precepts; in all, the emphasis is on how stability is an embedded piece of design considerations for joint ops.

Conduct a brief review of the five stability functions outlined in JP 3-07 (outline provided in Executive Summary and Chapter III of JP), in order to set the stage for how success in leading and supporting civ-mil integrated operations to stabilize will be a key part of developing the operational approach.

Including Stability into Operational Design: Discuss how the commander plays a critical role in both identifying and framing the “ill-defined problems” which are usually stability related, and encouraging discourse and collaboration with diverse audiences and agencies beyond the higher military headquarters. Then review the steps for “Developing the Operational Approach” using the diagram from JP 5-0 (pp III-3). (NOTE: the slide provided in the FI instruction packet includes how stability considerations enter into each of the key parts)


Transition to a discussion of the points on stability in design and planning, from JP 3-07, pp II – 2 to 11. Key points are:

o Understanding of the Operational Environment: collaboration with civilian and interagency partners in conducting a “conflict assessment” of the roots and drivers of conflict that then provides a more holistic view of the conflict that then improves the quality of JIPOE analysis led by the J-2, that looks past just the enemy and adversaries and to the actors/factors that will create and thrive upon instability.

o Identifying problems and potential solutions for stabilizing will include initial analysis and views for each of the stability sectors

o Highlight the role of conflict analysis/transformation, integration of defeat and stability mechanisms (JP 5-0, III 14 -15, and 28-31), and anticipating stability challenges and points of required succes across all phases of the campaign.

Finally, before moving onto Part 2 (that focuses on planning), discuss some operational considerations that should be kept in mind as the design moves forward to inform planning. (JP 3-07, pp II – 7 to 11; pp 20 to 30). (FI instruction slide provided)

Part 2: Planning for Stability During the Joint Operational Planning Process (JOPP): The focus of this section will be to highlight the key stability considerations that should be included within each of the various steps of the JOPP. As noted before, planning joint efforts to “stabilize” are accomplished as part of a single process (along with planning for other joint functions) in order to obtain the proper balance and simultaneity of offense, defense and stability to achieve overall civil – military success. Class discussion will cover the various steps of the JOPP, and how the staff can consider the key elements of conflict transformation (i.e., how JIIM actions can transform the factors producing violent conflict over time to return stability and accomplish strategic ends) and develop the tasks and activities to stabilize over the course of the operation. (NOTE: the slide package included in this lesson package supports this walk-through approach to the various JOPP steps).

Based upon the Operational Approach established by the Commander for how best to approach establishing and maintaining stability, “Mission Analysis” includes staff estimates of the key stability factors that frame the mission and further planning, to include:

o the strategic guidance for what “stability” should look like with respect to the host nation we are supporting and the purpose that military operations should have in this success,

o the facts and assumptions about both the enemy’s and the host nation’s goals, capabilities and commitment to achieving their own stable and sustainable political ends

o any constraints and restraint that are placed upon joint efforts to conduct operations that empower and build host nation capacity, or force levels/restrictions


o the JFC’s approved mission statement and refined operational approach that includes essential stability tasks and the commander’s purpose and endstate for joint operations to achieve sustainable security and stability that meets strategic guidance.

o The assessment approach for understanding the political, governance, security and economic conditions within the host nation that will provide CCIR necessary for commander decision making in stability areas.

During Course of Action (COA) Development through Selection, the staff ensures that COA’s include activities/tasks that increase host nation legitimacy and capacity for effective governance and security. The staff also considers the balance of defeat and stability mechanisms to ensure complementary joint efforts to defeat and remove control of people, terrain and resources from enemy control, across the phases of the intended operation. COA’s development and wargaming should include a clear vision and assessment for how defeat and stabilize mechanisms will work together to remove threats and establish stable conditions – i.e. how joint and interagency efforts will work together to build capacity, reform host nation institutions, and be prepared to effectively reassume governance, services and security in areas regained from adversary control through offensive and defensive operations. Key elements include:

o How military forces will develop liaison and integrating structures with the country team and other civilian led efforts to include NGO’s and UN efforts. Include also the C2 and working relationships between the organizations (supported/supporting, coordination, etc) that partners should be willing to accept.

o Arranging operations to stabilize in order to seize the initiative and show progress before the window of opportunity to gain and maintain local legitimacy and support disappears. Operations must meet local needs for security, services and restoring governance in a prompt and effective manner to gain and maintain local and coalition support until sustainable stability is achieved.

o How joint forces will assume temporary or transitional security and control over local areas gained through operations, and how the host nation will assume control from joint forces.

o Force Planning Considerations for how additional forces and capabilities could be required across phases to both 1) conduct Foreign Humanitarian Assistance (FHA) operations where host nation and humanitarian resources are insufficient and 2) enable US civilian efforts where security and numbers are a challenge.

o Where combat and delivery of decisive force is the focus of decisive ops in Phase III, anticipate the conditions at the transition to Phase IV where the emphasis will switch to limiting the use of force, with emphasis on security, control of threat/spoilers, and supporting local and country-team civilian efforts to reestablish governance and services.


During “Plan or Orders Development,” the staff ensures that directives clearly articulate how joint operations will be conducted and assessed to accomplish and support successful efforts with JIIM partners to maintain and restore host nation sustained stability over time and across all phases of the operation. Included are:

o Establishing stability tasks across all phases, describing how successful accomplishment of these task will contribute to joint success, and the transition criteria for moving forward across phases.

o Designating staff responsibilities for ongoing organizational liaison and coordination with interagency and civilian partners to accomplish these tasks over the course of the operation

o Designating when and how integrated assessments will be conducted, the areas to be assessed that indicate operational effectiveness (MoE’s) and performance (MoP’s), and how results will be provided to the commander and shared with civilian agencies to maintain a shared view of success/challenges in stability efforts

o Directing how joint Civil Military Operations (CMO) will facilitate joint force interactions with non-DoD and USG organizations involved in stabilizing efforts, as well as with the host nation, in order to expand stability through capacity building for governance and security.

Part 3: Conduct a practical exercise on how stability functions are included across the phases of a sample joint operations. One of the most important things in developing the stability aspects of both the operational approach and plan is to “start with the end in mind” - with a reasonably clear understanding between military and interagency partners of how we collectively define “success” across the stability sectors/functions and how these efforts interrelate to achieve mission success in maintaining or restoring stability. The lesson will end with a table top exercise (TTX) that enables student to employ their understanding of how stability should be intergrated into design and planning across all 5 phases of an operation, and reinforces the importance and challenges of working with interagency counterparts at the Country Team level to develop how military activities are integrated to attain both joint and U.S. mission accomplishment over time.

The exercise will center on developing an operational approach for integrating each of five stability functions across the 5 phases of a notional operations plan. The exercise builds upon class discussions of the key elements of how to integrate stability into design and planning, and provides participants the opportunity to analyze and discuss how joint military activities across the five functions - security, humanitarian assistance, economics and infrastructure, rule of law/policing, and governance and participation – are developed and employed over the course of a joint operation. Finally, students must analyze how success in any one area (such as security) cannot ensure overall success, and how each of these functions both supports and is supported by progress and success in other areas.

The exercise will be conducted in two parts, and requires pre-class preparation by workgroups designated approximately 2-3 lessons in advance. Prior to class, class

Coordinating Draft (28 Jun 15) members will form into 5 groups that will each focus on analyzing and preparing presentations on their assigned stability function area according to the format provides. During class, groups will brief their analysis on how efforts in their areas can be integrated into the phases of the operational plan (15 minute presentations for each group, using the provided 3 slide template). The exercise will conclude with an instructor led discussion of how these areas relate to one another to achieve overall mission success in stabilizing conditions within the JOA, and the practical challenges of integrating military and civilian efforts. (NOTE: A full lesson directive for conducting the exercise, along with a slide packet for student presentations is provided at Tab C.)

Lesson Summary and Transition: Conclude the lesson with a review of the major learning points for the lesson, and highlight how stability considerations are integrated into a single design and planning process that is conducted by the planning staff, employing the same principles and techniques as those used for offense and defense. Highlight also the key differences, such as the need for integrated design, planning and assessment with civilian interagency partners, as many efforts conducted in the short term by military forces will set the conditions for, and be assumed by, the country team as the conflict termination and re-deployment of joint forces occur. Finally, highlight the key principle of enabling long-term host nation success – that sustainable strategic success for the US is not in “doing for” the host nation in the short term, but in partnering with and developing capabilities and capacity (i.e., sustained commitment by capable institutions with adequate resources/programs) that last beyond our military intervention. 4. Readings and Potential Student Presentations: Required readings are focused to give the students an understanding of the stability aspects of joint design and planning elements, principles and processes, and how military and civilian efforts must be brought together as an integrated effort for joint and overall U.S. mission success.

If this is taught as a stand-alone lesson, have the students review the key elements of the joint design and planning process from JP 5-0, with a focus on the sections on Operational Design, pp III 1 – 18, and 28 – 31, and the JOPP, Chapter IV; as shown above, the lesson will focus on integrating stability considerations and activities into these standing processes, and not conducting a separate stability ops planning process.

The cornerstone readings for this lesson are DoD Instruction 3000.05, “Stability Operations”, and JP 3-07, “Stability Operations.

o The DoD instruction highlights that stability operations are of major importance to U.S. strategic success, and that DoD sees the success of these efforts of equal importance for design, planning and operations as our traditional core competencies of delivering decisive force. Therefore, to think in terms of assuming risk or handing these functions off to other civilian agencies while we focus on just a safe and secure environment does not meet DoD guidance.

o JP 3-07 illustrates how the same principles and processes employed in operational design and planning are used to drive thinking about joint


activities to stabilize within the host nation and in areas wrested from enemy control. Although the U.S. government no longer has the DoS Special Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (SCRS) and its Interagency Management System (IMS), military efforts must be developed to work in collaboration and coordination with ad-hoc interagency planning teams at the national level and country team levels. The principles and approaches outlined for use across the 5 stability functions correspond to the civilian stability sectors, and are derived based upon the experiences of the past decade of war as seen by both civilian and military participants.

Instruction should also briefly discuss how your particular service views Stability Operations in the same or different ways than the joint force. FI’s will designate a service SO reading based on the service school, or may choose to spread selected readings of several services across student groups for in class compare/contrast discussions.

In bringing together the civilian and military “organizational cultures,” we continue to run into several places where our civilian counterparts view planning for stability (and planning in general) in a different way from a “non-planning culture” perspective; the RAND study highlights a number of areas that are continuing challenges for joint planners.

Finally, TTX “group readings” are designed to split up the lengthy reading on the “stability functions amongst groups for analysis and sharing, and to get the students thinking about how the diverse sectors are actually brought together (as part of the operational approach) for success. These readings will also highlight amongst the groups how the plan has to include request, tailoring, sequencing and employing military and civilian capabilities over time; this avoids the common mistakes of thinking about stability too late in the operation/campaign, and that somehow military forces can rapidly switch from fighting to stabilizing without sufficient preparation/planning. Also, this attacks the myth of the “handoff to civilians”; military experience has shown that forces will continue to have responsibility for stabilizing in the wake of military success in defeating and removing enemy control, and that civilian forces have not, and most probably will not, be available in sufficient numbers and under high risk conditions, to accept such a hand-off.

Potential Student Presentations: In addition to the TTX “stability functions” presentations, there are two other areas for potential student presentations to support classroom learning:

First, selected student(s) can review the “Elements of Operational Design” for JP 5-0, and after reading JP 3-07 can provide their views (10 -15 minutes) on how stability considerations are a part of these elements. FI can then build upon this using the slide from the slide deck on this subject.


Second, a student with experience in design and planning can do a brief presentation on developing an operational approach, and their experience in how the JFC they worked for interpreted strategic guidance (on desired changes in the OE to make it more stable), framed the problem (of what was causing instability) and developed an approach to employing joint ops to transform several aspects of the security, governance and economic environment (through work with the host nation and against adversaries/spoilers) in order to develop his operational/planning guidance. Again, to avoid telling “war stories,” ensure the students presenting know that they have to relate their experience back to the key points from the JP 3-07 reading.

5. Suggested Time Schedule (for presentation as a stand-alone lesson): the following schedule is based upon a 3 hour (180 minute) instruction period. Start – 40 min. Admin/ FI – review the key points on the strategic value of stability

operations and importance of joint ops to achieving USG success in the current security environment. Then transition into a discussion of how stability considerations are included in the operational design (through application of the elements of operational design), and discuss how stability is included in the development of an operational approach.

40 – 75 min Transition to part 2, as the FI leads the discussion of how stability

considerations are included in each of the steps of the JOPP using the slides provided.

75 – 90 min Mid class break; student presenters from each group bring up their

slides/visual presentation aids to facilitate briefs. 90 – 165 min Conduct the Table Top Exercise: After FI introduction, student

groups will brief their assigned stability function using the supplied framework. Due to the short time available, recommend that briefers present, and questions/discussions be held to the end of each brief. Each group gets 15 minutes, with FI as the time manager and integrator, focusing each group on the final question of “How does success in your area enable/support success in other areas?”

165-180 min Lesson synthesis of how stability is integrated into joint design and

planning; preview next lesson in curriculum

6. Options – EMBEDDING PARTS INTO OTHER LESSON???


Update: Developing Case Studies to Support JPME-1 Planner Education 1. Introduction: The US Army War College (USAWC) Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI) is the lead for Joint Proponency in Peace and Stability Operations (PSO). As part of its PSO Proponency mission, PKSOI has been tasked by the Joint Staff J-7 to accomplish a number of tasks to improve Joint Professional Military Education (JPME). In support of this effort, PKSOI will develop supporting packages forJPME curricula, to include case studies of successful operations that illustrate the principles of effective design, planning and conduct of PSO’s.

2. Intent and Goals for Case Studies: These case studies are intended to illustrate the key contributions of stability efforts within a designated joint operation. Case study packages will consist of 1) a 40-50 page (8,000-12,000 words) monograph that analyzes the development and initial conduct of the designated operation, along with 2) a briefing that can be used to provide JPME instruction on the case study. These packages will be published and distributed as unclassified resources by PKSOI for use across the Joint Education community.

a. Each case study product will illustrate key principles, practices and challenges for joint commanders and planners involved in the design, planning and conduct of PSO’s as an extension of U.S. strategic requirements, and conducted in a Joint, Interagency, Interorganizational, and Multinational (JIIM) environment. The author(s) will develop these case studies that illustrate the perspectives, challenges and decisions of military leaders in order to enhance professional education and future mission planning success.

b. The analysis and views expressed are will be those of the author (and not

necessarily those of the Army), but should be consistent with a balanced assessment of political and military considerations and doctrine that framed the development and conduct of the operation examined. Because these case studies will be available across the JPME community, key leaders in the Army and Department of Defense, Congress, other domestic and international education and defense institutes, and major colleges and universities, these case studies will be a useful product for creating and advancing discussion across this broad community of decision makers, educators and practitioners on the principles and challenges of success in planning and conducting PSO’s.

c. Case Study Project Goals. The Joint Force, U.S. Army, the USAWC and PKSOI

will obtain value from these studies if we accomplish the following:

(1) Develop relevant, informative and practical analysis of the underlying concepts, doctrine, and methods for effectively designing and planning successful PSO’s in a JIIM environment.


(2) Provide balanced analysis of the strategic conditions and guidance underlying each operation, and how military leaders successfully interpreted and implemented this guidance through the conduct of joint operations.

(3) Provide current and future Joint and Army leaders with insights and practical approaches to conducting design and planning in a complex environment that enables effective unity of effort across JIIM actors. (4) Illustrate effective principles and major challenges of successfully deploying and establishing a joint mission that achieves short term security and stability while establishing an effective foundation for future mission success. (5) Contribute to the continued cross-community analysis and development of the body of knowledge on the key principles, challenges and methods for conducting U.S. civil-military operations that enable U.S. national security policy and strategy success.

3. Content of the Case Studies. Because these studies will be used to educate future military leaders and planners, studies will focus on how to understand a complex operating environment, interpret strategic guidance, and envision how major operations must be structured and established in order to set the conditions for long-term mission success. Each case study will focus on initial mission design through deployment and conduct in the first 1-2 years, focusing on the question of “Did the joint force commander and staff effectively design, plan and establish the mission in a way that provided for initial operational success while establishing the basis for long-term operational and strategic success?” In all, these studies will focus on the role of the military professional in understanding and planning effectively with civilian and multinational actors to achieve unity of understanding, purpose and effort.

a. Operations: The following have been selected for case study development as examples of successful stability-focused U.S. joint operations:

1. U.S. Role in Post Conflict Stability Operation: Operation Desert Storm, post conflict operations in Kuwait, 1991. Following the defeat of Iraqi forces, analyze how TF Kuwait and other military efforts enabled the effective return of Kuwaiti governance and security. 2. U.S. Assumes a Lead Role: Unified Task Force (UNITAF) operations in Somalia, 1993 where the U.S. led operations that set the conditions for international humanitarian relief efforts and the re-establishment of a UN Peacekeeping (PK) Mission, UNISOM – II


3. U.S. Assumes a Major Partner Role: U.S. operations in Kosovo, 1999 as part of NATO’s KFOR operations to establish a security and set conditions for KFOR and UN multidimensional PK mission success.

4. U.S. Supports a Regional Partner Lead: U.S. operations in East Timor, 1999, that supported Australian regionally-led operations to restore security and stability, and provided the basis for future UN PK mission

5. U.S. Military Supports USG Major Disaster Response Role: U.S. operation

Unified Response in Haiti, 2010 that supported US interagency response to the massive earthquake, and enabled the restoration of the US embassy and UN PK mission.

6. Supporting, Non-Standard Mission Role: U.S. operations in Liberia, 2015, that

enabled US and UN response to the Ebola outbreak. b. Case Study Framework The written case study with supporting briefing will be

developed around the following framework, and include analysis of the following points:

1. Background and Strategic Conditions for the Operation: Brief overview of the

relevant historical/geographical/social factors influencing U.S. political and military leaders understanding of the operational environment for the intervention; in areas where violence/conflict are major factors, a brief description of the actors and factors underlying the conflict relevant to military planning. (NOTE: this is not expected to be an in-depth history of the area/country, but essential background for understanding decisions on mission design and planning). With respect to the strategic conditions in the year of the intervention, analysis of the major political and international factors shaping the U.S. decision to intervene, and relate these to the need for military forces as part of U.S. efforts. As relevant, describe the agreements reached by the UN Security Council, regional bodies, and host nation government that bear upon the intervention.

2. Strategic Guidance: From the U.S. perspective, describe what the policy goals for using joint forces in either a lead or supporting role, and why the President chose the particular strategic approach. Describe and analyze the strategic guidance provided to military commanders on the desired outcomes, objectives, risk and resources

3. Operational Environment: Describe the key aspects of the OE that the military commander had to consider in framing the mission, to include conditions on the ground, potential partners and “spoilers”/adversaries, major security challenges to a safe and secure environment, areas where military forces had to work effectively alongside civilian/NGO efforts, etc The focus of this section is on how


conditions framed the development of the operational approach to mission design, planning and startup

4. Design and Planning for the Operation: Describe mission analysis process (objectives, facts and assumptions, major constraints/restraints, and essential tasks), and how the commander envisioned and provided effective guidance on mission, intent and planning for the operations. Describe also any challenges that emerged in this process in planning for and deploying the operation?

a. Analysis and critique on whether the both the coalition and U.S. commanders

“saw clearly” the major challenges ahead and provided for mission flexibility and adaptability as their vision moved into action?

b. Description of the challenges and successes in planning for and deploying the operation – why?

5. Deployment and Intervention – Describe how design and planning led to

successes and challenges in mission establishment and conduct of U.S. joint in the first 12-18 months on the ground. Assess overall mission effectiveness on establishing security, controlling adversaries/spoilers, and establishing conditions that enabled civilian led efforts. Additionally, provide learning points on the effectiveness of planning for integration with other U.S. and multinational partners, along with where planning failed to anticipate and provide for conditions on the ground. a. Assess their overall mission effectiveness on establishing security, controlling

adversaries/spoilers, and establishing conditions that enabled the effective establishment and conduct of civilian led national/Regional Org/NATO/UN programs and efforts.

b. Assess whether planning and resourcing adequate and adaptive enough to meet the known and unknown requirements faced during mission startup and execution .Were there areas where planning failed to anticipate and provide for conditions on the ground? Why and how?

c. Analysis of the challenges that both the multinational and the U.S. commander faced in establishing “unity of effort” across military and civilian elements of the mission team. Analyze also if they anticipated/recognized friction and dealt with it effectively to create effective senior leader/organizational teamwork.


6. Assessment and Relevant Insights on Joint Planning and Operations: Analyzes the overall difficulties and identify successful approaches for senior commanders in joint operational design, planning and adaptation during initial operations. Key questions for analysis are: a. Assess the challenges of understanding the complexities of the operating

environment – how might the commander developed a way to see more clearly in order to “envision more accurately” the key requirements and challenges ahead? What did the OE analysis simply miss, and why?

b. Was the mission properly resourced, organized and situated to establish a safe and secure environment and enable civilian success? What areas might the commanders of the initial efforts wish they could “do over”?

c. What were the areas where commanders failed to properly see and anticipate challenges to mission success? Why did this occur, and what can we learn from this in the future?

d. What challenges emerged in civ-mil relations and why? How did the multinational and U.S. commanders effectively deal with these challenges?

e. In design, planning, and conduct of the initial mission effort, did the initial team of coalition and U.S. commanders “get it right”? What were the implications and impacts for future mission effectiveness of what they established in the first year, and how did their decisions “echo” throughout future missions to contribute to success or failure

5. Delivering a Quality Product. The case studies will attempt to present what military leaders would find interesting and valuable, with solid research and analysis that characterize quality professional products. To be effective and useful to Majors, the resources that we assemble for case studies/instruction must provide key insights, principles and challenges that joint commanders and military planners should consider in integrating stability efforts into effective joint design and planning for the designated operations – the focus of our efforts to educate joint planners and leaders! Finally, These resources and case studies are intended to be distributed broadly in support of joint and civil-military education (priority, maximum distribution which meet a high standards of scholarship, professional relevance, and writing) of importance to developing Army and Joint planners and leaders means that case studies must be an excellent example of solid research, focused analysis, and highly effective writing style appropriate for military professional education.

6. Feedback: Please provide your questions, comments and suggestions to Dr James H. Embrey, Professor, Stability Ops, [email protected] (717) 245-3524.


jfec_final

Documents

joint operations

stability operations

importance of stability

review of draft stability

defensive operations

joint proponency

existing joint design

future joint leaders