Simulation Proposal

1. Simulation Proposal • Simulation Purpose: • To summarize and demonstrate knowledge of the themes and topics covered during the JSOMA program. • Have serious fun. • Simulation Objectives: • - The simulation will use bi-lateral and multi-lateral diplomatic exchanges (UNC exercise model) amongst five primary competing groups to achieve separate, specific objectives at the expense of other groups’ objectives within a regional stabilization scenario. These exchanges can incorporate all instruments of national power. The negotiation strategies will draw upon the themes and topics learned throughout the JSOMA program. No written deliverables will be required from the teams during the simulation, instead, their ability to clearly communicate to secure alliances and treaties, contain and deter threats, and increase and expand their regional autonomy and influence will be the criteria for evaluation. A short written AAR will be due from each primary team following the exercise.

2. Simulation Proposal • Simulation Scenario: • All US and NATO forces departed Afghanistan on 31 December 2014 when President Karzai refused to sign a Status of Forces Agreement and publically declared that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) no longer needed Western support for internal stability. • By January 2016, twelve months after the US / NATO withdrawal, President Karzai is overthrown by a renewed Taliban based in Quetta, Pakistan. The Islamic Caliphate of Greater Pashtunistan is formed from southern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. • The non-Pashtu tribes in northern Afghanistan unite behind Hazara tribal leadership and maintain the GIRoA and have asked the United States for assistance. • Under increased internal pressure from the Pashtu cultural unification, Pakistan fractures. The remnants of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, controlled solely by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) organization, maintain a tenuous control over the government’s nuclear weapons. • The Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Iran have significant interests / security concerns in the region and maneuver for influence and advantage amidst the chaos. • Emergent in the scenario is a Pakistani loose nuke situation. This group could be played by the JSOMA professors or the Simulation Control Group. This group’s intent is to upset the simulation’s balance and facilitate an agenda change. • Problem Statement / Simulation Construct: • Five primary groups will compete for regional stabilization / security. A sixth group (loose nuke group) will challenge the five primary groups and generally force competition and / or cooperation. • Each primary group will have three major objectives and three minor objectives which they will attempt to accomplish throughout the simulation. Major objectives will be worth more points than the minor objectives, but are more difficult to achieve. Each team’s major and minor objectives are in opposition to those of the other teams and ensure that the primary groups will need opposing courses of action to meet their objectives. • At the end of the simulation, the primary team that accomplished the most of their objectives wins. • Each group will plan for, request, and execute bi-lateral and / or multi-lateral diplomatic negotiations with the other groups in order to forward their individual agendas.

3. Simulation Proposal • Simulation Timeline: • The simulation will run 0900 – 1200 / 1300 – 1600 each day: • 19 May: Simulation introduction / Diplomatic exchanges • 20 May: Diplomatic exchanges / Collective exchange and Loose Nuke Introduction • 21 May: Diplomatic exchanges / Diplomatic exchanges • 22 May: Final collective exchange (complete 1200) / Social event: food / drink (1800) • Simulation Task Organization: • The Simulation Control Group (SCG) will create, test, and manage the simulation construct. • The Breakout Development Group (BDG) members on each team will prepare their country’s objectives and lead their respective groups, facilitate the diplomatic negotiations, maintain the simulation construct, etc. • - Simulation Control Group (6 x BDG) • Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (3 x BDG / 4 x JSOMA) • Islamic Caliphate of Greater Pashtunistan (3 x BDG / 4 x JSOMA) • Islamic Republic of Pakistan (ISI) (3 x BDG / 4 x JSOMA) • Republic of India (3 x BDG / 4 x JSOMA) • Islamic Republic of Iran (3 x BDG / 4 x JSOMA) • Loose Nuke Group (JSOMA Professors) • Seven-member teams will facilitate multiple diplomatic exchanges during each diplomatic exchange block. • If additional individuals or organizations participate, we can distribute them amongst the groups or establish their own group with the BDG members. • SOF community leadership can observe and / or participate as desired.

4. Simulation Proposal • Simulation Venue Requirements: • Funds, permitting… • 7 x small rooms (once for each primary team, loose nuke team, and the SCG) • 1 x large room for the introduction and collective exchanges • Caffeine-heavy refreshments • Minimal automation support (wireless network access and civilian email accounts for BDG members at a minimum) • Hotel conference rooms would be ideal. • Away from Bank Hall would be sufficient. • Psychological Pressure and Win / Lose: • - The Simulation Control Group will discuss and agree upon the completion of each team’s minor and major objectives and post a public “scoreboard” in order to generate / reinforce competition. Each team will only know their own objectives, and must speculate on those of the other teams. The teams will only see the score (points?) and not the specific objective completed to earn those points.

5. Simulation Proposal • Breakout Design Group Way Ahead: • 16 January: Present and discuss proposals. Agree upon basic construct and scenario. Break down BDG class into Simulation Control Group (6) and five country groups (3 each). Syllabus. • - 23 January: Discussion of the simulation construct / game play. (War College scenario). • 30 January: Discussion and development of major and minor objectives (compartmented). • 06 February: Discussion of written products required for simulation; assignment of products. • 13 February: Discussion of simulation venue and resource requirements; resource plan • 20 February: To Be Determined • 06 March: Rehearsal of Simulation Introduction • 13 March: Rehearsal of Diplomatic Exchanges • 20 March: Rehearsal of Loose Nuke Introduction • 03 April: Rehearsal of Final Collective Exchange • 10 April: Discussion of Social Event; Issues, Questions, Concerns…. • 19 – 22 May: Simulation Execution