Upload
noah-boone
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SponsorSponsorProblemProblem
AssessAssessRiskRisk
SolutionSolutionStrategyStrategy
Measures ofMeasures ofMerit (MoM)Merit (MoM)
Human &Human &OrganisationalOrganisational
IssuesIssues
ScenariosScenarios
MethodsMethods& Tools& Tools
DataDataProductsProducts
3
6
4
57
10
8
911
ProblemProblemFormulationFormulation
Prepare forSuccess
Scenarios
Chapter 7
Richard E. Hayes
Evidence Based Research, Inc.
NATO Code of Best Practice (COBP)for C2 Assessment
2
CO B
P Scenarios
SponsorSponsorProblemProblem
AssessAssessRiskRisk
ProblemProblemFormulationFormulation
SolutionSolutionStrategyStrategy
Measures ofMeasures ofMerit (Merit (MoMMoM))
Human &Human &OrganizationalOrganizational
IssuesIssues
ScenariosScenarios
ModelsMethods& Tools& Tools
DataDataProductsProducts
3
6
4
57
10
8
911
Prepare forSuccess
3
CO B
P Purposes of Scenarios
• To provide the context or environment for the context of the C2 assessment
• To bound the analysis and focus the assessment on central issues
• To ensure that the assessment is informed by an appropriate range of opportunities to observe the relevant variables and their interrelationships
• To sample the problem space
5
CO B
P Types of Scenarios
• Approved– Insure relevance– Promotes comparison of analyses
• Planning– Detailed– Provide the drivers for planning
• Operational– Greater detail– Dynamics over time
• Vignette– Smaller in time and space– Focused on crucial issues– Often support analytic excursions
6
CO B
P Approaches Vary
– NATO
• Small number of approved scenarios
• Based on NATO Charter and agreed guidance
– Canada
• More than a dozen approved scenarios
• Based on anticipated missions
– US
• DoD Directive 8260.1 December 6, 2002– Politico-military contexts– Operational objectives– Major force arrivals– Planning considerations
• Use of vignettes to sample the interesting space
7
CO B
P
Nation States• Countries• Alliances• Ad hoc coalitions
Sub-National Actors• Ethnic groups• Guerrilla groups• Refugees
Organizations• Transnational criminal organizations• Terrorist groups• International business
Individuals/Networks• Globalization protestors• Currency speculators• Computer hackers• Migrants
Systemic Challenges• Infectious diseases• Natural disasters• Global warming
Use of Military Force(Threat or use of US and coalition
military force to defend national interests)
Policing / Monitoring(Use of US military to support
peacekeeping and complex contingency operations to ensure
a secure environment)
Supporting Civilian Missions(Collaboration of US military with
civilian entities to further US national interests)
Conflict CooperationMechanism of Engagement
Future Operational Environment
Mostly Coalition,Heavily Restricted
Rules of Engagement (ROE) (Type 2)
Coalition/Interagency Support to CivilianOperations (Type 3)
US-led MilitaryWarfare (Type 1)
Homeland/BorderSecurity (Type 3A)
• Laser Strike (Andean Drug War)
• Enduring Freedom (Bin Laden)
Scenario Type
• Noble Eagle (homeland security)• Homeland BW/CW anti-terrorist
consequence management
• Garden Plot (Los Angeles riots)• Capture of CIA Assassin (Kansi)• Globalization protests (WTO,
G-8, IMF, etc.)
• Maritime interception of newinflux of Cuban or Haitian migrants
• Special operations to captureterrorist or neutralize a small cell
EmergingChallenges
TraditionalMode of
Engagement
• Allied Force (Kosovo)• Guardian Retrieval (DRC NEO)• Silver Anvil (Sierra Leone NEO)
• Caribbean Drug Interdiction• Athens Olympic Games security• Internet use to counter terrorist
groups
• Fuerte Apoyo (Hurricane Mitch)• Avid Response (Turkey
Earthquake)• Forest fire containment
(Mexico/Central America)
• Restore Hope (Somalia)• Joint Guardian (Kosovo)• Essential Harvest (Macedonia)
• MIA Recovery Operations
• Support Hope (Rwanda)• Shining Hope (Kosovo)• Provide Comfort (Kurds)
• Quarantine to control domestic outbreak of Ebola virus
• UNMIH (Haiti)• Joint Endeavor (Bosnia)• INTERFET (East Timor)
• Desert Shield/Desert Storm (Iraq)
• Uphold Democracy (Haiti)
8
CO B
P Critical Characteristics of Scenarios
• Approval• Breadth• Capability• Credibility• Scenario development team
– Subject matter experts (SMEs)– OA analysts– Defense concept planners– Policy makers
9
CO B
P The Scenario Framework
National Security InterestsExt
ern
a lF
acto
rs
Economic/Political/Military/
SocialHistoric Situation
Mission Constraints & Limitations, ROE
Military ScopeIntensity,Joint/
Combined
• Geography, Region, Terrain, Climate, Weather
• Civil Infrastructure (e.g., Transportation, Telecommunications, Energy)
En
viro
nm
ent
• Organisation, Order of Battle, C2, Doctrine, Resources, Lessons Learned
• Weapons, Logistics, Skills, Morale
Friendly Forces
Adversary Forces Non-CombatantsC
apa b
ilit i
es o
fA
cto
rs
Neutrals
10
CO B
P Challenges
• Standards for judging the applicability and accreditation of (existing) scenarios should be developed
• For coalition C2 assessments, the scenarios should be developed or adapted by teams including representatives from all participating nations
11
CO B
P Recommendations
• Organize a set of scenarios and vignettes that allow the assessment to sample the interesting problem space
• Create a base of approved scenarios and vignettes• Explicitly identify and describe the scenarios prior to
the execution of the assessment• Address information and hypotheses on threats,
adversary forces, and non-combatants in the scenario
• Explicitly identify the C2 aspects under consideration within the problem definition
• Identify and document key scenario assumptions