29 th ISMOR Jeff Appleget, PhD Colonel, US Army (retired) August - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Using the Peace Support Operations Model (PSOM) for UN Peacekeeping Operations Training and Education 29th ISMOR

Jeff Appleget, PhD

Colonel, US Army (retired)

August 2012

Agenda

• Introduction to PSOM
• Irregular Warfare
• USPTC Game for Peace using PSOM

– Yellowstone Scenario – Game Schedule – Developing and Evaluating COAs – Key Takeaways – Insights and Outcomes

• Summary and Road Ahead

2

LTC Chris Nannini and Dr. Andy Hernandez both contributed to the USPTC Game for Peace Using PSOM, along with the NPS SEED Center. The J8, M&SCO, and the UK MOD’s [dstl] have also been key supporters of this initiative.

PSOM

Background

• Developed in 2006 by United Kingdom’s (UK) Ministry of Defence

(MOD) Defence Science and Technology Laboratory ([dstl]).

• The PSOM was generated by a need to understand stabilization

and COIN – the prevailing concerns emerging from UK involvement in Iraq and later Afghanistan. It was established that PSOM would represent:

– Peace Enforcement – Peacekeeping – Stabilization – COIN – Elements of Counter Terrorism

• The US doctrine called ‘Irregular Warfare’ covers all these

activities and more clearly defined the relationship between COIN, CT, Stabilization and PSO.

• The challenge for the PSOM developers was to ensure that the

UK and US approaches (subtly different in places) were both capable of being represented in PSOM.

3

What is PSOM?

• Computer-assisted, human-in-the-loop

representation of Strategic to Higher Tactical level Security & Stabilisation.

• Provides a population-centric

representation of the Comprehensive Approach to Stabilisation to inform decision making.

• Relevant to conflict / non-conflict

environments, and represents the full range of actors present in a stabilisation environment.

• Has been used for campaign

development and testing, as well as training and force structure insights.

MAP UNITS INFO/INTEL

4

Used to model both Iraq and Afghanistan. Used to assist ISAF (NATO) planning in Afghanistan in March ([dstl]) and November (J-8) 2011.

Irregular Warfare

• 2006: New doctrine emerged,

addressing:

• Irregular Warfare
• Counterinsurgency
• Stability Operations
• Multi-Dimensional Peacekeeping

Operations

• Multi-Dimensional Peacekeeping

Operations are deployed in dangerous aftermath of internal conflict to create a secure and stable environment.

• Irregular Warfare contains all the

aspects of the other three

• perations, so if a model or

computer simulation can be created to do Irregular Warfare, it can also be used for the other three.

5

Irregular Warfare Counter insurgency

Stability Operations

Multi- Dimensional Peacekeeping Operations

Note that UN Peace Enforcement Operations and Traditional UN Peacekeeping Operations, typically involving two or more nation-states, don’t readily fit into the realm of Irregular Warfare.

USPTC Integration of PSOM into UN PKO Training

• USPTC developed a two-week UN PKO Training Course.

– Week one provides an introduction to UN PKO, primarily through lectures focused in a classroom setting. – Week two provides a means to assess, reinforce, and complement week one training, primarily through an interactive PSOM classroom “Game for Peace” exercise tailored for student groups.

6

For week two, students are separated into 4- or 5- person groups that function as a brigade staff.

Yellowstone Scenario

• UN Security Council Resolution

(notional)

– Support a secure and stable environment – Support the constitutional and political process – Promote and protect human rights

• Country Background

– Political fragmentation – Five ethnic groups – Inter-ethnic tensions

UN Mission is in its second year with a UN Stabilization Force (UNSFOR) consisting of 3 Brigades in 3 Operational Regions

7

The [dstl]-developed UN peacekeeping scenario is well researched, with accompanying documentation and road to UN intervention.

Game for Peace Execution

• Introduce the Scenario

– PSOM Overview – Scenario Brief

• Prepare the Students

– Country Background – UN Security Council Resolution – Operational Plan – Intelligence Summary

• Sequence of Events

1. Develop COAs 2. Evaluate COAs 3. Run Simulation (Turn) 4. Receive Situation Update 5. Discuss Results 6. Repeat

?

8

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Prepared Operation Student Designed Operation Student Designed Operation Short-Term Planning FRAGOs Long and Mid-Term Planning COA Analysis Prepared COAs

Game for Peace Events

9

Active Red Team Introduced Student Designed Operation Red Team active

Engage Guard Resources Measure of Effectiveness Patrol Security Patrol (Soft) Criminality Policing Promote Protect Convoy Units Protect Population Provide OMLT Provide Training Recce Cordon and Search Clear Measure of Effectiveness Destroy Human Capital (Covert) Security Destroy Infrastructure (Covert) Criminality Destroy Infrastructure (Overt) Legitimacy Guard Resources Occupy Infrastructure Policing Recce Provide OMLT Provide Training Measure of Effectiveness Security Criminality Legitimacy Build Infrastructure Provide Aid Measure of Effectiveness Provide Training Legitimacy Train Human Capital Infrastructure Build Infrastructure Provide Aid Measure of Effectiveness Train Human Capital Humanitarian

Intent

Operational Plan Objectives Activity

Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration of Militias Security Sector Reform of National Security Forces Governance, Reconstruction, and Development Humanitarian Assistance in Support of Host Nation Rule of Law, Public Safety, and Public Order

Understanding Objectives: Lines of Effort

Students use this framework for COA development

Developing COAs

Unit Icon Unit Name Location Mission/Intent Task

Infantry Company 3, 4 Control/Stabilize Soft Patrol Infantry Company 4, 5 Control/Stabilize Soft Patrol Infantry Company

• 9. 7

Control/Stabilize Soft Patrol Artillery Battery 6, 4 Other QRF Reconnaissance Company 9, 7 Transition Provide Training Security Force Battalion 6, 5 Build/Humanitarian Provide Aid Engineer Company 5, 3 Logistics/HQ HQ Function Engineer Company 7, 8 Control/Stabilize Guard Resource Engineer Company 8, 8 Build/Humanitarian Provide Training Civil-Military Cooperation Team 4, 3 Build/Humanitarian Provide Aid

SFSG CIMIC SFSG CIMIC

11

The first COA is scripted. After the students better understand processes and goals of the exercise, they develop subsequent COAs.

Measures of Effectiveness Predicted Change Security Humanitarian Legitimacy Criminality Infrastructure Improve Decline Remain the Same

Engage Guard Resources Measure of Effectiveness Patrol Security Patrol (Soft) Criminality Policing Promote Protect Convoy Units Protect Population Provide OMLT Provide Training Recce Cordon and Search Clear Measure of Effectiveness Destroy Human Capital (Covert) Security Destroy Infrastructure (Covert) Criminality Destroy Infrastructure (Overt) Legitimacy Guard Resources Occupy Infrastructure Policing Recce Provide OMLT Provide Training Measure of Effectiveness Security Criminality Legitimacy Build Infrastructure Provide Aid Measure of Effectiveness Provide Training Legitimacy Train Human Capital Infrastructure Build Infrastructure Provide Aid Measure of Effectiveness Train Human Capital Humanitarian

Intent

Operational Plan Objectives Activity

Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration of Militias Security Sector Reform of National Security Forces Governance, Reconstruction, and Development Humanitarian Assistance in Support of Host Nation Rule of Law, Public Safety, and Public Order

Evaluating COAs

12

Each group appoints a spokesperson to explain what their group predicts the

• utcome of each turn will be. Group competition helps the groups focus.

Simulation Run (Turn)

13

PSOM Output Measures of Interest

Humanitarian Aid Legitimacy Security Infrastructure Crime Consent of UN Presence Focus of UN Mission Second and Third Order Effects

14

Measures of Effectiveness Predicted Change Security Humanitarian Legitimacy Criminality Infrastructure Measures of Effectiveness Actual Change Security Humanitarian Legitimacy Criminality Infrastructure

Complex environment

• Multi-national
• Inter-agency
• Warring factions
• Comprehensive approach

Intended Consequences Secondary and Tertiary Effects

Discussing Results

15 Instructor-led discussions elicit from students possible reasons why the group predictions differed from the model results.

Key Takeaways

• Intended consequences (primary effects) represent desired
• utcomes:

– Security and stability improves across the region. – Humanitarian aid is supported, sustainable, and arrives where required. – Host nation infrastructure improves and capabilities increase.

• Critical thinking is required to uncover how initial actions may

create conditions for follow-on changes to occur; positive and

• negative. (Short-term sacrifice for long-term gain—delivering aid

versus building infrastructure.)

• Secondary and tertiary effects may be difficult to identify.
• Our educational goals include encouraging the participants to

consider secondary and tertiary effects.

16

This use of PSOM is primarily in an Education role.

Game for Peace Insights and Outcomes

• Instructor team diversity and expertise creates a robust educational

experience that enhances the learning environment for the students.

– Peace Support Operations (PSO) experience – Civilian, Military, and Defense backgrounds – Expertise in simulation-based technologies and methods

• PSOM generates real-time, quantifiable measures of effectiveness based
• n students’ decisions.

– Creates robust and interactive discussions of effects – Facilitates knowledge assimilation

• Working in groups helps students build confidence and cross-level

knowledge—particularly helpful when instruction is translated.

• Emphasis on secondary and tertiary effects elevates from tactical to
• perational and strategic insights.
• Participants very interested in the PSOM application and want to:

– Construct real world scenarios with instructors in the future – Incorporate examples from past and potential PSO environments – Learn how to leverage modeling and simulation for assessment and planning – Explore potential use for training in peace support operations 17

Summary and Road Ahead

• PSOM:

– Solid platform for UN PKO training and education as was demonstrated in Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan. – Yellowstone scenario is an excellent example of a UN PKO that is very useful for training and education. – More detailed look at the metrics will provide a better idea on how we can expand our use of PSOM for advanced US PTC and UN training and educational objectives.

• Proposed Road Ahead:

– Develop suite of several scenarios focused on AFRICOM AOR (South Sudan has been proposed, a PSOM scenario was done for the Africa Analytic Baseline in 2007, but not available as an Unclassified scenario.) – Deep dive into metrics, measures, and their supporting algorithms to further expand PSOM’s capabilities. – A simplified version of PSOM for training and education may be required, especially if other PTCs are interested in using PSOM for their training and educational programs.

Solid core of PSOM expertise currently exists at US PTC, NPS OR and SE Departments, SEED Center and the NPS MOVES Institute, providing tremendous potential for growth.

18