1 / 16

Introduction

Growing Data Standards for the Simulation of Counterinsurgency and Irregular Warfare: An Assessment William Riggs JHU/APL March 27, 2012. Introduction. Live-Virtual Constructive Architecture Roadmap Implementation (LVCAR-I) Project Common Data Storage Formats (CDSF): Nine Categories

presta
Download Presentation

Introduction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Growing Data Standards for the Simulation of Counterinsurgency and Irregular Warfare: An Assessment William RiggsJHU/APLMarch 27, 2012

  2. Introduction • Live-Virtual Constructive Architecture Roadmap Implementation (LVCAR-I) Project • Common Data Storage Formats (CDSF): Nine Categories • Geospatial data • Manmade environmental features • Unit order of battle/force structure • Electronic order of battle/network • Platform/weapons performance and/or characteristics • Plans/scenarios • Behavior (including organizational and individual) • Logistics • Event results • This paper addresses the impact of Irregular Warfare and Counterinsurgency scenarios on the semantics and syntax associated with SISO standards dealing with plans and orders (e.g. Military Scenario Definition Language (MSDL); Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML))

  3. How Irregular Warfare Has Changed Military Doctrine and Terminology • Renewed emphasis on various forms of low-intensity conflict • Growing de-emphasis on classic or convention forms of armed conflict (e.g. state-on-state violence) • Sometimes conflated with “asymmetric warfare • Involves all elements of National Power: • “Three D’s: Defense, Diplomacy, Development • The 1993 version of FM 100-5, “Operations” was the first to introduce “Operations Other than War” as a primary mission area • Expansion of roles and missions associated with “peace operations” • Evolution of “Operational Themes” with similar rules of engagement, tactics techniques and procedures across mission areas

  4. “Operational Themes” (from FM 3-0) • Limited Intervention, including • Noncombatant Evacuation Operations * • Raid • Strike • Show of Force * • Foreign Humanitarian Assistance (FHA) * • Consequence Management • Enforcement of Sanctions • Peacetime Military Engagement (PME) • Multinational training events and exercises • Military Support to Security Assistance • Joint Combined Exchange Training • Recovery Operations • Nation Assistance * • Arms Control * • Counterdrug Operations • Major Combat Operations, including Offense, Defense and Retrograde Operations • Irregular Warfare, including • Counterinsurgency, • Support to an Insurgency *, • Unconventional Warfare, • Foreign Internal Defense (FID) * • Combating Terrorism * • Peace Operations, including* • Peacekeeping • Peace Enforcement • Peacemaking • Peace Building • Conflict Prevention *Previously associated with Stability Operations

  5. JHU/APL MSDL Change Request as Submitted (from October 2011) • Three Recommendations Pertaining to the Representation of : • Structured Planning Data. • Perceived, Assumed and Desired States. • Description of planned execution of orders • Does the Consideration of Irregular Warfare Affect These Recommendations ? • If So, How ?

  6. Not All The Actors are Military Organizations Table 1: Interagency Roles & Relationships in Reconstruction and Stabilization Operations *Key Planning Element in State Department Interagency Management System

  7. Advance Civilian Team (ACT):Roles and Tasks

  8. Counterinsurgency: Lines of Operations* Incorporation of COIN doctrine has resulted in a tailoring of the Operations Process, andthe products thereof (e.g. operations plans and orders),to integrate these logical lines of operations into the commander’s concept and tasks assigned to subordinate units. Characterization of a COIN scenario may require an expanded methodology to capture the dynamic interactions among collaborating and competing parties. * From FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency, December 2006

  9. Situation Assessment: An Activities Matrix* * From FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency, December 2006

  10. Situation Assessment: Geospatial Overlays • Population support overlays track the measured or assumed position of the population with respect to the government and insurgents. • Ethnicity overlays track the demographic composition of neighborhoods and regions within an area of operations • Since many current insurgencies are n-sided, with multiple competing insurgent groups, this overlay may require a variety of categorizations for each population segment.

  11. Extending the Analysis of Operational Terms Except for terms derived from JP1-02, DIME terminology is less mature, more limited

  12. Classification of Operational Terms: DIME/PMESII Differentiation DIME terminology least robust in operational and tactical details (Where, When, How), but more robust in rationale for actions taken (Why)

  13. Data Modeling Issues: Previous Analysis Confirmed (with Some Added Complexity) • Normalization of Operational Terms: • Similar patterns, even greater use of generalized tasking verbs. • Example “TF 1-15 IN conducts counterinsurgency operations in AO Hawkeye to (LO Goal #1), (LO Goal #2)…(LO Goal #n) • Some additional incongruities (e.g. “Buffer Zone”) across domains • Indirect Referencing • Similar patterns, new instances associated with situational awareness (e.g. Population Overlays, Social Network Analyses • Complexity • Abstract terms drawn from academic environments more often encountered • Example: Empowerment “means giving a person or group more power…” • Some terms require acceptance of a theoretical frame of reference (e.g. “framing”

  14. Summary and Conclusion • As long as Low Intensity Conflict remains an ongoing concern, one can expect the operational terminology and its use associated with these scenari0s to evolve • Current products prove some support for OOTW and Irregular Warfare symbology • MSDL Support for 2525C • CBML and JC3IEDM: Partial Support for DIME/PMESII Activities • SME Engagement Needed to Improve These Products: Especially with Civilian Agencies • JHU/APL MSDL Change Package addresses much of the OOTW, Irregular Warfare problem space • Situational Awareness Overlays and Matrices Need to Be Addressed in MSDL and C-BML Development • SISO Product Development Groups (e.g. C-BML, MSDL) can accommodate these issues within their current schedules, but: • If JC3IEDM remains the backbone tasking language, DIME/PMESII extensions need to be brought into that process • Shared Public Specifications May Be Considered as a Gap Fillers

  15. Questions and Feedback

  16. Backup Slides

More Related