The Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD USA 20723-6099
2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
The Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory
11100 Johns Hopkins Road
Laurel, MD USA 20723-6099
Growing Data Standards for the Simulation of Counterinsurgency and Irregular Warfare:
An Assessment
William RiggsJHU/APL
March 27, 2012
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
Introduction
2
• Live-Virtual Constructive Architecture Roadmap Implementation (LVCAR-I) Projecto 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))
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
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)o Sometimes conflated with “asymmetric warfare
Involves all elements of National Power: o “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
3
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
“Operational Themes” (from FM 3-0)
Major Combat Operations, including Offense, Defense and Retrograde Operations
Irregular Warfare, includingo Counterinsurgency,o Support to an Insurgency *, o Unconventional Warfare,o Foreign Internal Defense (FID) *o Combating Terrorism *
Peace Operations, including*o Peacekeepingo Peace Enforcemento Peacemakingo Peace Buildingo Conflict Prevention
4
Limited Intervention, includingo Noncombatant Evacuation Operations *o Raido Strikeo Show of Force *o Foreign Humanitarian Assistance (FHA) *o Consequence Managemento Enforcement of Sanctions
Peacetime Military Engagement (PME)o Multinational training events and exerciseso Military Support to Security Assistanceo Joint Combined Exchange Trainingo Recovery Operationso Nation Assistance *o Arms Control *o Counterdrug Operations*Previously associated with Stability Operations
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
JHU/APL MSDL Change Request as Submitted (from October 2011)
5
• Three Recommendations Pertaining to the Representation of :o Structured Planning Data. o Perceived, Assumed and Desired States. o Description of planned execution of orders
•Does the Consideration of Irregular Warfare Affect These Recommendations ?
• If So, How ?
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
Not All The Actors are Military Organizations
6
Locus Level of War InteragencyOrganization(s)
Civilian Organization
Military Organization
Home Nation
StrategicNational
Country Reconstruction & Stabilization Group*
DepartmentRegional Bureau
OSD/Joint Staff
Country Strategic Theater/Operational
Country TeamIntegrated Planning Cell*Advanced Civilian Team (ACT) Headquarters (HQ)
Embassy or other State Department Mission type
Combatant CommandJoint Task ForceMilitary AssistanceAdvisory Group
Provincial Tactical ACT HQ*Field ACTs
ConsulateACT HQField ACTs or PRT
Division and belowProvincial Reconstruction Team (PRT)Human Terrain Team
Table 1: Interagency Roles & Relationships in Reconstruction and Stabilization Operations
*Key Planning Element in State Department Interagency Management System
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
Advance Civilian Team (ACT):Roles and Tasks
7
Echelon Roles and TasksACT Headquarters 1. Coordinate and Conduct R&S Operations
2. Direct field teams3. Knowledge Management and Progress Monitoring (periodic situation reporting with policy, planning and programming recommendations
Field ACT (FACT) 1. Direction of R&S activities2. Assessments (Local/regional)3. Negotiations and Support to Local Governance4. Information (Gathering) and Reporting
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
Counterinsurgency: Lines of Operations*
8
Incorporation of COIN doctrine has resulted in a tailoring of the Operations Process, and the 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
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
Situation Assessment: An Activities Matrix*
9 * From FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency, December 2006
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
Situation Assessment: Geospatial Overlays
10
• 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.
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
Extending the Analysis of Operational Terms
11
Source Concepts Relevant Concepts %Relevant
JP 1-02 3508 1654 47%FM 1-02 2002 1198 60%Common to JP 1-02 and FM 1-02
818 516 63%
DOD Total 4692 2336 50%CCO Lexicon 771 303 39%Common to CCO Lexicon and DOD Pubs
328 203 62%
Grand Total 5019 2436 48%
Except for terms derived from JP1-02, DIME terminology is less mature, more limited
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
Classification of Operational Terms: DIME/PMESII Differentiation
12
Classification JP 1-02 FM 1-02 CCO Lexicon Total
Who 439 (77%) 188 (32%) 61 (11%) 570
What (Action) 314 (58%) 333 (62%) 108 (20%) 537
What (Object) 827 (67%) 605 (49%) 176 (14%) 1238Where 224 (60%) 238 (64%) 25 (7%) 373When 82 (76%) 67 (62%) 3 (3%) 108
How 230 (67%) 162 (47%) 25 (7%) 343
Why 29 (65%) 16 (36%) 13 (30%) 44Multiples 470 390 96 737% Multiples 28% 33% 32% 30%
Total 1654 1198 303 2436
DIME terminology least robust in operational and tactical details (Where, When, How), but more robust in rationale for actions taken (Why)
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
Data Modeling Issues: Previous Analysis Confirmed (with Some Added Complexity)• Normalization of Operational Terms: o Similar patterns, even greater use of generalized tasking verbs.o Example “TF 1-15 IN conducts counterinsurgency operations in
AO Hawkeye to (LO Goal #1), (LO Goal #2)…(LO Goal #n)o Some additional incongruities (e.g. “Buffer Zone”) across domains
• Indirect Referencingo Similar patterns, new instances associated with situational
awareness (e.g. Population Overlays, Social Network Analyses• Complexityo Abstract terms drawn from academic environments more often
encounteredo Example: Empowerment “means giving a person or group more
power…”o Some terms require acceptance of a theoretical frame of reference
(e.g. “framing” 13
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
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 symbologyo MSDL Support for 2525Co CBML and JC3IEDM: Partial Support for DIME/PMESII Activitieso SME Engagement Needed to Improve These Products: Especially with Civilian
Agencies
• JHU/APL MSDL Change Package addresses much of the OOTW, Irregular Warfare problem spaceo 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:o 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 Fillers14
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
Questions and Feedback
15
2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2010 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop2012 Spring Simulation Interoperability Workshop
Backup Slides
16