Multinational Force Course of Action Comparison

1. COALITION/COMBINED TASK FORCE TRAINING Multinational ForceCourse of Action Comparison

2. Purpose • Define Course of Action Comparison and its role in the crisis action planning process • Discuss the associated task steps • Provide lessons learned from previous exercises and operations

3. References MULTINATIONAL FORCE STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURES (MNF SOP) FIRST DRAFT 1.2 LAST UPDATE: 10 July 03 MNF SOP First Draft JP 3-0 Doctrine for Joint Operations JP 5-00.2 JTF Planning Guidance & Procedures

4. Crisis Action Planning Process I Mission Analysis/ Restated Mission II Course of Action Development III Analysis of Opposing Courses of Action V Commander’s Decision C R I S I S IV Course of Action Selection OPORD III Course of Action Development II Crisis Assessment V Execution Planning I Situation Development VI Execution Deployment Data Base Alert Order Warning Order Planning Order Execute Order AND/OR IV Comparison of Own Courses of Action Commander’s Estimate Process

5. COA Comparison • Purpose • Objectively compare friendly courses of action against a set of established criteria • Identify and recommend the course of action that has the highest probability of success against the threat or enemy course of action that is of the most concern to the commander

6. Why Compare COAs? • To seek the COA that... • Gives our commander the maximum flexibility • Limits the enemy commander’s freedom of action (limits effect of threat, suffering, etc. for HA/DR missions) • Determine which COA has the highest probability of success within the constraints of operational factors

7. COA Comparison • An Objective Process • Facilitated discussion led by the chief of plans (C3 or C5) • Participants include each of the key staff principles

8. COA Comparison Determine Comparison Criteria Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander Task Steps

9. Determine Comparison Criteria Determine Comparison Criteria • Those dominant or “governing” factors that emerge during COA analysis and wargaming that are operationally significant Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander

10. Determine Comparison Criteria May be ... • Commander’s intent/guidance • Fixed values for joint ops such as: • Principles of war & MOOTW • Fundamentals of joint and coalition warfare • Elements of operational art • Critical factors identified during the analysis such as logistics support, political constraints, etc.

11. Comparison Criteria • Commander’s Guidance • Quick Deployment • Handover to Peacekeeping Operations (PKO) force • Address Humanitarian Assistance (HA) requirements

12. Comparison Criteria • Principles of War • M ass • O bjective • O ffensive • S implicity • E conomy of Force • M aneuver • U nity of Command • S ecurity • S urprise • Unity of Effort • Restraint • Perseverance • Legitimacy • Operational Art • Synergy • Simultaneity and Depth • Anticipation • Balance • Leverage • Tempo and Timing • Operational Reach • Forces and Functions • Arranging Operations • Centers of Gravity • Direct vs. Indirect • Decisive Points • Culmination • Termination

13. Comparison Criteria Notional Example • Rapid Delivery • Critical Needs • Integration • Transition • Simplicity • Force Protection • Flexibility

14. Comparison Criteria Before starting the actual comparison • Carefully and meticulously define the criteria… • all must agree (common understanding) • reduce subjectivity • Eliminate redundant criteria • Weight each criterion (optional)

15. Comparison Criteria … seeking well defined criteria … • Bad example: • Rapid Delivery = get there fast • Better example: • Rapid Delivery = forces arrive at FSB • Best example: • Rapid Delivery = Combat forces RSO&I w/in 48 hours into JOA

16. Construct the Comparison Method Determine Comparison Criteria • Descriptive Comparison • Positive - Neutral - Negative Comparison • Weighted Matrix Comparison • Weighted Scale • Weighted Criteria Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander Summarize key points Assist commander in making decisions

17. Descriptive Comparison COA ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES - Rough integration of forces - Rough transition - Complex organization - Not flexible at all - Adequate force protection - Rapid delivery - Meets critical needs COA 1 - Rapid delivery - Meets critical needs - Smooth Integration - Smooth Transition - Complex organization - Less flexible - Adequate force protection COA 2 - Smooth integration - Smooth transition - Simplest organization - Adequate force protection - Best force protection - Less rapid delivery - Does not meet all critical needs COA 3

18. Positive - Neutral - Negative Comparison - 0 0 - 0 0 0 - + 0 - 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + - 0 0 -2 1 Remarks Comparison Criteria COA # 2 COA # 3 COA # 1 Rapid Delivery Critical Needs Smooth Integration Smooth Transition Simplicity Force Protection Flexibility Totals

19. Weighted Comparison (Weighted Scale) 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 1 19 Remarks COA # 3 COA # 2 COA # 1 Governing Criteria Rapid Delivery 3 Critical Needs 3 Smooth Integration 3 Smooth Transition 3 Simplicity 2 Force Protection 2 Flexibility 2 18 15 Totals

20. Weighted Comparison (Weighted Scale/Weighted Criteria) Governing Criteria WT. Remarks COA # 2 COA # 3 COA # 1 3 9 3 2 3 9 Rapid Delivery 6 6 2 4 Critical Needs 3 6 2 3 Smooth Integration 4 3 2 6 3 2 2 6 2 3 3 Smooth Transition 1 3 3 Simplicity 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 3 3 Force Protection 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1 1 3 Flexibility 2 2 6 26 Totals 15 18 30 19 28

21. Comparison Method Key Points • The matrix is merely a tool to help • Organize thoughts • Present data • The process is more important than the product • The matrix is not a substitute for honest assessment and detailed staff work

22. Lessons Learned ...or...“Ways to Cook the Books” • Define the governing factors after you start comparing, bending definitions to support the intended COA • Add criteria as you compare to ensure the intended COA wins • Have redundant criteria that measure the same thing and support the intended COA • At the end, identify a criterion that supports the throw-away COA so it does not look one-sided • Compare first and then weight the criterion that supports the intended COA by as much as you need to win in a close comparison

23. COA Comparison Determine Comparison Criteria • INPUT • Wargamed COAs • Agreed upon criteria & comparison method • OUTPUT • Information for paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Commander’s Estimate • Comparison of friendly COAs • Recommended COA Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander

24. Recommend a COA Determine a recommended COA Determine Comparison Criteria • C3 or C5 reviews and records individual staff recommendations • Commander guidance on criteria weighting reviewed and incorporated • Staff determines which COA to recommend • In the event of indecision • Staff determines if COA modification would permit decision • C3/C5 consults Chief of Staff for guidance or resolution Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander

25. Recommend a COA Brief the Commander Determine Comparison Criteria • Prepare/Present COA Decision Briefing • Sample Agenda • Purpose CoS • Agenda CPG • Enemy Situation C2 • Friendly Situation CPG • Higher Mission/Intent CPG • CTF Mission/Intent CPG • Changes to Assumptions, Limitations, COGs CPG • COA1, COA2, COA3 CPG • COA Summary CPG • COA Analysis (Wargame Results) CPG • COA Comparisons CPG • COA Recommendation CPG • CCTF Approval or Modification Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander

26. Determine Comparison Criteria Construct the Comparison Method Do the Comparison and Record Data Recommend a COA to the Commander Task Steps COA Comparison Summary

27. COA Comparison Summary Key Points • Facilitates the commander’s decision making process • Harnesses the collective wisdom of the experience resident on the staff • Evaluates the key governing factors If the senior planner knows which COA will be chosen, before you begin comparing, you have not done your job in presenting options to the commander The Commander Selects the Course of Action

28. Crisis Action Planning Process I Mission Analysis/ Restated Mission II Course of Action Development III Analysis of Opposing Courses of Action V Commander’s Decision C R I S I S IV Course of Action Selection OPORD III Course of Action Development II Crisis Assessment V Execution Planning I Situation Development VI Execution Deployment Data Base Alert Order Warning Order Planning Order Execute Order AND/OR IV Comparison of Own Courses of Action Commander’s Estimate Process

29. COALITION/COMBINED TASK FORCE TRAINING Multinational ForceCourse of Action Comparison