MNF SOP Planning Options & Campaign Planning Process Good (morning / afternoon / evening), my name is ____________. I am from ____________. I am here to provide an informational brief on the Crisis Action Planning Process (CAP) contained in the Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP). Background & Key Foundations 27 March 2006 UNCLASSIFIED

To provide a broad overview of MNF SOP Detailed Planning Options Purpose To provide a broad overview of MNF SOP Detailed Planning Options Provide information on the background, key foundations & overview of the newly developed Campaign Planning Process The Bottomline Up Front of this brief is to provide information on recommended changes to the Crisis Action Planning (CAP) process as contained in the Multinational Planning Augmentation Team’s (MPAT) Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP). Of lesser interest to most multinational planners but of more interest to U.S. and several allied military planners, this brief will also relate the recommended improvements in the MNF SOP CAP process to the “effects-based” approach advocated by certain elements of the U.S. joint community and investigated in several multinational efforts, and conclude with possible improvements to the U.S. CAP process as contained in Joint Operational Planning & Execution Systems (JOPES).

MNF SOP Recognizes a Base Planning Model For all Planning Methods Mission Analysis Brief to Cdr CDR Planning Guidance Base Multinational CTF Planning Model COA Decision COA Selection Commander’s Est. To Lead Nation National Authority Approval Development Comparison Plan/Order Warning Order MNF SOP Recognizes a Base Planning Model For all Planning Methods Five Basic Steps: 1 – Situation Review (common level of understanding) 2 – Define the Problem 3 – Analyze the Problem 4 – Explore Possible Solutions 5 – Select & Develop the Preferred Solution

Planning & Operational Levels National Strategic Level (Grand Strategy) Head of Government United Nations Security Council Primary Government Agencies Minister/Secretary of Defense Defence Agencies Joint/General Staff National & Combatant HQs JTF / CTF HQs JTF / CTF Components Subordinate Commands, Units & Field Operating Agencies Strategic Military Level (Total Military Picture) Operational Level (JTF / CTF) Tactical Level (Components)

Planning & Operations Responsibilities Level Strategic Operational Tactical Responsibility Strategic Objectives & Policy Decisive Points & Supporting Effects Activity (Tasks) The Operational Level links Strategic Objectives to Tactical Actions

Genesis For Change Emerging Planning Concepts (~2003): Joint Military Appreciation Process (JMAP - Australia) Campaign Planning Processes (Canada & United Kingdom) Effects-Based Planning – new but not well understood or articulated, & not adapted to crisis action planning (deliberate planning focus) MPAT TE-7, New Delhi (JUL – AUG 2004): Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) – baseline MPAT procedures but… Difficulty in Course of Action Development No linkage back to Mission Analysis – step missing? Some planners focused on Tasks – others on Decisive Points Each planning process has good points Planners tended to focus on Tactical Level activities (vice Operational Level) MNF SOP Mini-Workshop, Honolulu (NOV 04): Examined various national & effects-based planning processes Conclusions: Focus on End State, Conditions Required, Effects to be Achieved (not tasks) New Planning Process Required MNF SOP-7, Honolulu (AUG 05): Validated need for current & a new Detailed Planning Process MNF SOP-8, Kuala Lumpur (JAN 06): Developed & refined the new “Campaign Planning Process”

Evolution of the Campaign Planning Process Commander’s Scoping Review of the Situation Problem Identification & Analysis Campaign Formulation Linking Planning to Execution Commander’s Estimate Prepare OPLAN & OPORD MULTINATIONAL FORCE STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES (MNF SOP) Version 1.6 Feb 2006 Australia Operational Planning UK Campaign Planning

Comparison Option 1 – Military Option 2 – Campaign Decision-Making Process Option 2 – Campaign Planning Process National Strategic Level (Grand Strategy) Strategic Military Level (Total Military Picture) Operational Level (JTF / CTF) Tactical Level (Components)

Comparison Option 1 – Military Option 2 – Campaign Decision-Making Process Option 2 – Campaign Planning Process National Strategic Level (Grand Strategy) Campaign Plan: Courses of Action Conditions OPLAN / OPORD: Courses of Action Task-based Strategic Military Level (Total Military Picture) System Center of Gravity Operational Level (JTF / CTF) Tactical Level (Components) Military Centers of Gravity

Military Decision-Making Process Option 1 Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) Option 2 Campaign Plan Process 1. Commander’s Scoping 2. Review of the Situation 3. Problem Identification and Analysis. – Mission Analysis – System Center of Gravity Analysis – Evaluation of Factors 4. Campaign Formulation – Develop the Campaign Framework – Decisive Point (DP) Analysis – Campaign Evaluation – Produce Campaign Plan Directive – Determine Prioritized Supporting Effects 5. Linking Planning to Execution - Components Analyze SEs / develop COAs - Components present COAs to CCTF - CCTF/Components Analyze COAs - CCTF Selects COA 6. Cdr Estimate to Higher HQs 7. Prepare OPLAN and OPORD - Assess 1. Conduct Operational Msn Analysis - Msn Analysis - Cdr Briefing 2. Issue Planning Guidance 3. Issue Warning Order(s) 4. Develop COAs/Cdr Brief - Develop / Refine COA - Cdr COA Brief for Guidance - Cdr Guidance for COA actions 5. Develop Staff Estimates 6. Analyze COA - Assessment / Wargame 7. Compare COA 8. Select/Modify COA - Cdr COA Decision Brief - Cdr Estimate to Higher HQs for review/approval/guidance 9. Prepare OPLAN / OPORDs Task Focused Conditions Focused

Comparison Factor Option 1 – MDMP Option 2 – Campaign Plan (Effects Supported) Primary Focus Tasks Conditions Mission Analysis Enemy / Threat Approach (IPB) Systems Approach (OIPE) Planning Products OPORDs / OPLANs Campaign Planning Directive (w/ OPORDs & OPLANs) Planning Focus Mission & Intent (Purpose, Method, End State) Objectives & Conditions (System End State) Center of Gravity (COG) Adversarial-based (Attack Threat & Defend Friendly) System-COG (derived from End State) CCTF – COS – Staff Process Staff Developed - COS Managed - CCTF Reviewed & Approved Requires more Commander Involvement throughout the Process CTF Components Role Parallel Planning with Liaison Officers Integrated with CTF HQ (for OPORD Development) Summary CTF generally tells Components “HOW” to Fight CTF empowers Components to determine “HOW” to Fight

Systems Approach to Crisis Response Key Foundations Systems Approach to Crisis Response The Bottomline Up Front of this brief is to proviDP information on recommenDPd changes to the Crisis Action Planning (CAP) process as contained in the Multinational Planning Augmentation Team’s (MPAT) Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP). Of lesser interest to most multinational planners but of more interest to U.S. and several allied military planners, this brief will also relate the recommenDPd improvements in the MNF SOP CAP process to the “effects-based” approach advocated by certain elements of the U.S. joint community and investigated in several multinational efforts, and concluDP with possible improvements to the U.S. CAP process as contained in Joint Operational Planning & Execution Systems (JOPES).

Planning Contributions for Each Level National Strategic Broad National guidance - Policy Strategic Objectives Strategic End State Justification, Legitimacy, Coalition-building for Operations Strategic Military Broad National Military Guidance Strategic Military Objectives & Mission Strategic System Center of Gravity (S-COG) Coordinated Essential Strategic Guidance JTF / CTF Operational Level Operational End States Identification of What Conditions Need to be Influenced Operational Military Objectives & Mission Operational S-COG JTF / CTF Components – Subordinate Units Tactical Concept of Operations Identification of Tasks to be Accomplished Tactical Military Objectives & Mission Tactical Center(s) of Gravity

Systems Approach Strategic Perspective Crisis Possible End-States Failed State Extremist Government This is a graphic depiction of a situation in a given state or region DESIRED STRATEGIC END STATE (Stability) CURRENT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES & POLICY Current Situation

Systems Approach Strategic Perspective Crisis Possible End-States Failed State Extremist Government COORDINATED STRATEGIC END STATE (Stability) CURRENT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES & POLICY Current Situation Multinational Force This is a graphic depiction of a situation in a given state or region

Systems Approach Military Operational Level Failed State Operational Levels CURRENT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES & POLICY Multinational CTF Operations Follow-on Military Activities COORDINATED STRATEGIC END STATE (Stability) Campaign Operational End States Extremist Government Current Situation Possible End-States Operational Activities are bounded within the Strategic System

Systems Approach Multiple Actors & Stakeholders IOs & NGOs: support prior to & after a crisis Failed State CURRENT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES & POLICY International & Nongovernmental Organizations Multinational CTF Operations COORDINATED STRATEGIC END STATE (Stability) Follow-on Military Activities United Nations (Civil & Military) Threat Forces and Factions (internal & external) Extremist Government Current Situation Possible End-States

Systems Approach Complex Environment Failed State Operational Levels CURRENT STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES & POLICY Multinational Operations Follow-on Military Activities COORDINATED STRATEGIC END STATE (Stability) Diplomatic Activities Economic Activities Informational Activities Recovery / Development Activities Extremist Government Current Situation Possible End-States Note: Above can be different mixes of functions; this is only one example of such a mixture

Systems Approach Bottom Line: A Systems Approach to multinational planning acknowledges the complex nature of Crisis Response Contingencies in the 21st Century and underscores the requirement for an approach to crises with a coordinated “civil-military” perspective & effort from the start, recognizing all actors and stakeholders within the crisis. MNF SOP Version 1.6 Military solutions to complex situations do not meet requirements to accomplish an overall end state.

Campaign Planning Process Overview Campaign Planning Process The Bottomline Up Front of this brief is to proviDP information on recommenDPd changes to the Crisis Action Planning (CAP) process as contained in the Multinational Planning Augmentation Team’s (MPAT) Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP). Of lesser interest to most multinational planners but of more interest to U.S. and several allied military planners, this brief will also relate the recommenDPd improvements in the MNF SOP CAP process to the “effects-based” approach advocated by certain elements of the U.S. joint community and investigated in several multinational efforts, and concluDP with possible improvements to the U.S. CAP process as contained in Joint Operational Planning & Execution Systems (JOPES).

MPAT “Words to Live By” Be patient - don’t try to solve the problem from the initial stages of the crisis. Trust & know the planning process. Start out with the big picture and understand the foundations of the crisis before attempting to solve the problem. What do I know? Who else needs to know? Find out WHAT needs to be done before concentrating on HOW to do it. “Sometimes, in order to go fast, it is better to go slow at first.” - BGen Tan Huck Gim Singapore Armed Forces “Plans are nothing. Planning is everything.” - MajGen (Ret) Frank van Kappen

Campaign Planning Process Steps 1. Commander’s Scoping 2. Review of the Situation 3. Problem Identification and Analysis. – Mission Analysis – System Center of Gravity Analysis – Evaluation of Factors 4. Campaign Formulation – Develop the Campaign Framework – Decisive Point (DP) Analysis – Campaign Evaluation – Produce Campaign Plan Directive – Determine Prioritized Supporting Effects 5. Linking Planning to Execution - Components Analyze SEs / Develop COAs - Components present COAs to CCTF - CCTF/Components Analyze COAs - CCTF Selects COA 6. Cdr Estimate to Higher HQs 7. Prepare OPLAN and OPORD - Assess

Campaign Planning Process Products Planning Document 1 - Warning Order 1 Planning Document 2 - Situation Review Summary (Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment-OIPE) Planning Document 3 - Mission Analysis Template Planning Document 4 - Warning Order 2 Planning Document 5 - Campaign Plan Planning Document 6 - Warning Order 3 Planning Document 7 – Commander’s Estimate Planning Document 8 - OPLAN Planning Document 9 - OPORD

Campaign Planning Process Step 1 Commander’s Scoping: Description: CCTF receives situation update & strategic guidance; identifies any major information/knowledge gaps; conducts time appreciation review; issues guidance on battle/operational rhythm establishment, broad readiness guidance for staff & units & assigns broad responsibilities & orientation guidance to: Special Staff C5 Plans, C3 Future Ops (FOPS) & C3 Current Ops (COPS) Components Aim: Sets the conditions with CTF HQ & Command for a disciplined & effective planning environment. Initiates preparatory readiness actions for staff & units Product: Warning Order 1 (summarizes key elements of Step 1)

Campaign Planning Process Step 2 Review of the Situation: Description: CCTF, Staff, NCEs, Components, & interagency (IA) representatives (as applicable) gain shared knowledge on the short & long term foundations of the situation. This step is centered around the Operational Intelligence Preparation of the Environment (OIPE) brief developed by the C2 (supported by the C5, C7 and Political Advisor). OIPE focuses on the whole environment (not just the threat). It should include joint, multinational force, and IA (civil governmental & UN / IO’s / NGO’s perspectives). Aim: Gain an initial understanding of the background to the crisis & the current situation in the prospective operational environment. Product: C2 Intel Plans publishes the OIPE brief & a summary for distribution to CTF HQ & Components (NLT 2 hours after completing the Review of the Situation step).

Campaign Planning Process Step 3 Problem Identification & Analysis: Description: The CCTF leads select staff in a Mission Analysis & also identifies the System Center of Gravity (S-COG) that must be influenced to achieve the operational end state, while the staff (+) conducts parallel factor analyses (functional estimates) to identify “limitations” (constraints / restraints). It has 3 sub-steps (Mission Analysis; S-COG Analysis & Factor Analysis). Aim: Sets the conditions for the development of a common vision between the various elements of the CTF Command for the conceptual & physical principles affecting the crisis. Products: Complete Mission Analysis (using the template). Warning Order 2 (outlining the CCTF’s intent, operational end state & the operational S-COG).

Campaign Planning Process Step 4 Campaign Formulation: Description: C5 PLANS analyzes S-COG vulnerabilities & end-state to identify DPs (conditions) linked by relationship, time, space, &/or purpose to formulate a Campaign Framework (requires back brief to CCTF); Staff & components develop the framework & DPs further to identify Supporting Effects (SEs); The framework is assessed for feasibility, suitability & acceptability; The Campaign Plan Directive is published & SEs are prioritized. Aim: Formulate the concept for the campaign, with description of “conditions” that need to be established, to achieve the end state. Products: Campaign Schematic – visual depiction of the Campaign Framework Campaign Plan Directive – articulates the overarching campaign design & includes a copy of the Decisive Point (DP) Analysis & the Campaign Schematic. Warning Order 3 (Prioritized Supporting Effects [SEs] for the Campaign Plan Directive DPs [described within a Concept of Operations]).

Campaign Planning Process Step 4 Campaign Formulation 4A - Develop the Campaign Framework 4B - DP Analysis 4C - DP Evaluation 4D -Produce Campaign Plan Directive 4E - Determine Prioritized SEs Purpose Identify DPs, linked conceptually in relationships, along Lines of Operation, which contribute to achieving the End State (in a Campaign Schematic) SEs developed from DPs Check validity of DPs against CCTF’s intent Articulates the Campaign Framework with info on how DPs & SEs influence the S-COG, & in-turn support attainment of the End State SEs are ordered to identify initial effects (not tasks) to be achieved

Campaign Planning Process Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution: Description: Planning is linked to execution by linking DPs & SEs to component activity. CCTF, Staff, & Components formulate Courses of Action (COAs), based on integrated CTF Component Tasks. Aim: By linking DPs & SEs to component activity, COAs are identified that plan to achieve SEs & DPs yielding clear options for execution & achievement of the Operational End State, while supporting achievement of the overall End State. Product: Identification of Component COAs by which prioritized SEs are influenced and the preferred CTF COA is selected.

Campaign Planning Process Step 5 Linking Planning to Execution 5A –Components Analyze SEs, & develop Component COAs to achieve SEs 5B – CTF Components present COAs to CCTF 5C – CCTF & CTF Components analyze CTF COAs 5D – CCTF selects CTF COA Purpose Components conduct mission analysis based on prioritized SEs (from WARNO 3) to identify tasks they can perform to attain SEs. Components present COAs to initially deconflict activity, and raise awareness of overall planning effort. CCTF & Components develop Component COAs into CTF COA(s) to synchronize, deconflict, coordinate & cooperate component activities in time & space, for execution in an integrated fashion. The best COA to achieve prioritized SEs is selected based on analysis (and, with a Commander’s Estimate), is recommended to HHQ.

Campaign Planning Process Step 6 Commander’s Estimate: Description: A completed Commander’s Estimate is forwarded through the Strategic Military Commander to National Authorities for review and approval / comment. Developed by C5 PLANS, the Commander’s Estimate is based on the Campaign Plan Directive and the CCTF’s recommended COA. The Lead Nation national authorities in multinational operations coordinate the multinational effort at the national policy level through appropriate strategic consultations with international bodies and participating nations responding to the crisis. Aim: To formally recommend what the CTF effort should focus on to accomplish at the Operational and Tactical Levels to support achievement of the overall End State. Product: Commander’s Estimate.

Campaign Planning Process Step 7 Prepare OPLAN & OPORD: Description: C5 PLANS develops the OPLAN 1 (assigning prioritized SEs within a Concept of Operations) and C3 FOPS & Components prepare OPORD 1 (assigning prioritized tasks within a Concept of Operations); these plans are issued by the CCTF to subordinate CTF Component Commanders for execution of an operational mission. Aim: Synthesize the information produced to date with an OPLAN approved by HHQ and used to develop an OPORD issued to CTF Components for execution of operations. Products: Operational Plan 1 (OPLAN 1) Operational Order 1 (OPORD 1)

Summary MNF SOP provides two Planning Processes Option 1 – Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) Option 2 – Campaign Planning Process Both options are flexible for the Lead Nation & Multinational Force Commander Campaign Planning Process Adapted to today’s complex planning environment Focus on the Conditions required to meet the End State Supports “whole of government” approach to crisis action planning Greater integration of CTF HQ and Component HQs

Questions? UNCLASSIFIED