Using the Peace Support Operations Model (PSOM) for UN Peacekeeping Operations Training and Education 29 th 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 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 2 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. MAP UNITS • Provides a population-centric representation of the Comprehensive Approach to Stabilisation to inform decision making. INFO/INTEL • 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. Used to model both Iraq and Afghanistan. Used to assist ISAF (NATO) planning in Afghanistan in March ([dstl]) and November (J-8) 2011. 4
Irregular Warfare • 2006: New doctrine emerged, addressing: • Irregular Warfare Irregular Warfare • Counterinsurgency • Stability Operations • Multi-Dimensional Peacekeeping Counter Operations insurgency • Multi-Dimensional Peacekeeping Operations are deployed in Stability dangerous aftermath of internal Operations conflict to create a secure and stable environment. • Irregular Warfare contains all the Multi- aspects of the other three Dimensional Peacekeeping operations, so if a model or Operations computer simulation can be created to do Irregular Warfare, it can also be used for the other three. 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. 5
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. For week two, students are separated into 4- or 5- person groups that function as a brigade staff. 6
Yellowstone Scenario UN Mission is in its second year with a UN Stabilization Force (UNSFOR) consisting of 3 Brigades in 3 Operational Regions • 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 The [dstl]-developed UN peacekeeping scenario is well researched, 7 with accompanying documentation and road to UN intervention.
Game for Peace Execution • • Sequence of Events Introduce the Scenario – PSOM Overview 1. Develop COAs – Scenario Brief 2. Evaluate COAs • Prepare the Students 3. Run Simulation (Turn) – Country Background 4. Receive Situation Update – UN Security Council Resolution – 5. Discuss Results Operational Plan – Intelligence Summary ? 6. Repeat 8
Game for Peace Events Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Long and Mid-Term Planning Short-Term Planning COA Analysis FRAGOs Student Student Student Prepared Prepared Designed Designed Designed Operation COAs Operation Operation Operation Active Red Red Team Team active Introduced 9
Understanding Objectives: Lines of Effort Operational Plan Objectives Activity Engage Intent Rule of Law, Public Safety, and Public Order 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 Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration of Militias 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 Security Sector Reform of National Security Forces Provide Training Measure of Effectiveness Security Criminality Legitimacy Build Infrastructure Governance, Reconstruction, and Development Provide Aid Measure of Effectiveness Provide Training Legitimacy Train Human Capital Infrastructure Build Infrastructure Humanitarian Assistance in Support of Host Nation Provide Aid Measure of Effectiveness Train Human Capital Humanitarian Students use this framework for COA development
Developing COAs Unit Icon Unit Name Location Mission/Intent Task Soft Infantry Company 3, 4 Control/Stabilize Patrol Soft Infantry Company 4, 5 Control/Stabilize Patrol CIMIC Soft Infantry Company 9. 7 Control/Stabilize SFSG Patrol Artillery Battery 6, 4 Other QRF Provide Reconnaissance Company 9, 7 Transition Training Build/Humanitarian Provide SFSG Security Force Battalion 6, 5 Aid HQ Engineer Company 5, 3 Logistics/HQ Function Guard Engineer Company 7, 8 Control/Stabilize Resource Build/Humanitarian Provide Engineer Company 8, 8 Training Build/Humanitarian Provide CIMIC Civil-Military Cooperation Team 4, 3 Aid The first COA is scripted. After the students better understand processes and goals of the exercise, they develop subsequent COAs. 11
Evaluating COAs Operational Plan Objectives Activity Engage Intent Rule of Law, Public Safety, and Public Order Guard Resources Measure of Effectiveness Patrol Security Patrol (Soft) Criminality Policing Promote Measures of Predicted Protect Convoy Units Protect Population Effectiveness Change Provide OMLT Provide Training Recce Security Cordon and Search Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration of Militias Clear Humanitarian Measure of Effectiveness Destroy Human Capital (Covert) Security Destroy Infrastructure (Covert) Criminality Destroy Infrastructure (Overt) Legitimacy Legitimacy Guard Resources Occupy Infrastructure Policing Recce Criminality Provide OMLT Security Sector Reform of National Security Forces Provide Training Infrastructure Measure of Effectiveness Security Criminality Legitimacy Build Infrastructure Improve Governance, Reconstruction, and Development Provide Aid Measure of Effectiveness Provide Training Legitimacy Train Human Capital Decline Infrastructure Build Infrastructure Humanitarian Assistance in Support of Host Nation Remain the Same Provide Aid Measure of Effectiveness Train Human Capital Humanitarian Each group appoints a spokesperson to explain what their group predicts the 12 outcome of each turn will be. Group competition helps the groups focus.
Simulation Run (Turn) 13
PSOM Output Measures of Interest Second and Third Focus of UN Mission Order Effects Humanitarian Aid Security Legitimacy Crime Infrastructure Consent of UN Presence 14
Discussing Results Complex environment • Multi-national • Inter-agency • Warring factions • Comprehensive approach Intended Consequences Secondary and Tertiary Effects Measures of Predicted Measures of Actual Effectiveness Change Effectiveness Change Security Security Humanitarian Humanitarian Legitimacy Legitimacy Criminality Criminality Infrastructure Infrastructure Instructor-led discussions elicit from students possible r easons 15 why the group predictions differed from the model results.
Key Takeaways • Intended consequences (primary effects) represent desired outcomes: – 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. This use of PSOM is primarily in an Education role. 16
Recommend
More recommend
