Using the Peace Support

Operations Model (PSOM) for UN

Peacekeeping Operations Training

and Education

29th 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

2

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

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.

• Provides a population-centric

representation of the Comprehensive

Approach to Stabilisation to inform

decision making.

• 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.

MAP UNITS

INFO/INTEL

4

Used to model both Iraq and Afghanistan. Used to assist ISAF (NATO) planning

in Afghanistan in March ([dstl]) and November (J-8) 2011.

Irregular Warfare

• 2006: New doctrine emerged,

addressing:

• Irregular Warfare

• Counterinsurgency

• Stability Operations

• Multi-Dimensional Peacekeeping

Operations

• Multi-Dimensional Peacekeeping

Operations are deployed in

dangerous aftermath of internal

conflict to create a secure and stable

environment.

• Irregular Warfare contains all the

aspects of the other three

operations, so if a model or

computer simulation can be created

to do Irregular Warfare, it can also

be used for the other three.

5

Irregular Warfare

Counter

insurgency

Stability Operations

Multi-Dimensional

Peacekeeping Operations

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.

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.

6

For week two, students are separated into 4- or 5-

person groups that function as a brigade staff.

Yellowstone Scenario

• 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

UN Mission is in its second year with a UN Stabilization Force

(UNSFOR) consisting of 3 Brigades in 3 Operational Regions

7 The [dstl]-developed UN peacekeeping scenario is well researched,

with accompanying documentation and road to UN intervention.

Game for Peace Execution

• Introduce the Scenario

– PSOM Overview

– Scenario Brief

• Prepare the Students

– Country Background

– UN Security Council Resolution

– Operational Plan

– Intelligence Summary

• Sequence of Events

1. Develop COAs

2. Evaluate COAs

3. Run Simulation (Turn)

4. Receive Situation Update

5. Discuss Results

6. Repeat ?

8

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday

Prepared

Operation

Student

Designed

Operation

Student

Designed

Operation

Short-Term Planning

FRAGOs

Long and Mid-Term Planning

COA Analysis

Prepared

COAs

Game for Peace Events

9

Active Red

Team

Introduced

Student

Designed

Operation

Red Team

active

Engage

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

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

Provide Training

Measure of Effectiveness

Security

Criminality

Legitimacy

Build Infrastructure

Provide Aid

Measure of Effectiveness Provide Training

Legitimacy Train Human Capital

Infrastructure

Build Infrastructure

Provide Aid

Measure of Effectiveness Train Human Capital

Humanitarian

Intent

Operational Plan Objectives Activity

Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration of Militias

Security Sector Reform of National Security Forces

Governance, Reconstruction, and Development

Humanitarian Assistance in Support of Host Nation

Rule of Law, Public Safety, and Public Order

Understanding Objectives:

Lines of Effort

Students use this framework for COA development

Developing COAs

Unit Icon Unit Name Location Mission/Intent Task

Infantry Company 3, 4 Control/Stabilize Soft

Patrol

Infantry Company 4, 5 Control/Stabilize Soft

Patrol

Infantry Company 9. 7 Control/Stabilize Soft

Patrol

Artillery Battery 6, 4 Other QRF

Reconnaissance Company 9, 7 Transition Provide

Training

Security Force Battalion 6, 5 Build/Humanitarian Provide

Aid

Engineer Company 5, 3 Logistics/HQ HQ

Function

Engineer Company 7, 8 Control/Stabilize Guard

Resource

Engineer Company 8, 8 Build/Humanitarian Provide

Training

Civil-Military Cooperation Team 4, 3 Build/Humanitarian Provide

Aid

SFSG

CIMIC

SFSG

CIMIC

11

The first COA is scripted. After the students better understand

processes and goals of the exercise, they develop subsequent COAs.

Measures of

Effectiveness

Predicted

Change

Security

Humanitarian

Legitimacy

Criminality

Infrastructure

Improve

Decline

Remain the Same

Engage

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

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

Provide Training

Measure of Effectiveness

Security

Criminality

Legitimacy

Build Infrastructure

Provide Aid

Measure of Effectiveness Provide Training

Legitimacy Train Human Capital

Infrastructure

Build Infrastructure

Provide Aid

Measure of Effectiveness Train Human Capital

Humanitarian

Intent

Operational Plan Objectives Activity

Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration of Militias

Security Sector Reform of National Security Forces

Governance, Reconstruction, and Development

Humanitarian Assistance in Support of Host Nation

Rule of Law, Public Safety, and Public Order

Evaluating COAs

12 Each group appoints a spokesperson to explain what their group predicts the

outcome of each turn will be. Group competition helps the groups focus.

Simulation Run (Turn)

13

PSOM Output Measures of Interest

Humanitarian Aid Legitimacy Security

Infrastructure Crime Consent of UN Presence

Focus of UN Mission Second and Third

Order Effects

14

Measures of

Effectiveness

Predicted

Change

Security

Humanitarian

Legitimacy

Criminality

Infrastructure

Measures of

Effectiveness

Actual

Change

Security

Humanitarian

Legitimacy

Criminality

Infrastructure

Complex environment

• Multi-national

• Inter-agency

• Warring factions

• Comprehensive approach

Intended Consequences

Secondary and Tertiary Effects

Discussing Results

15 Instructor-led discussions elicit from students possible reasons

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.

16

This use of PSOM is primarily in an Education role.

Game for Peace

Insights and Outcomes

• Instructor team diversity and expertise creates a robust educational

experience that enhances the learning environment for the students. – Peace Support Operations (PSO) experience

– Civilian, Military, and Defense backgrounds

– Expertise in simulation-based technologies and methods

• PSOM generates real-time, quantifiable measures of effectiveness based

on students’ decisions. – Creates robust and interactive discussions of effects

– Facilitates knowledge assimilation

• Working in groups helps students build confidence and cross-level

knowledge—particularly helpful when instruction is translated.

• Emphasis on secondary and tertiary effects elevates from tactical to

operational and strategic insights.

• Participants very interested in the PSOM application and want to: – Construct real world scenarios with instructors in the future

– Incorporate examples from past and potential PSO environments

– Learn how to leverage modeling and simulation for assessment and planning

– Explore potential use for training in peace support operations

17

Summary and Road Ahead

• PSOM:

– Solid platform for UN PKO training and education as was demonstrated in

Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

– Yellowstone scenario is an excellent example of a UN PKO that is very

useful for training and education.

– More detailed look at the metrics will provide a better idea on how we can

expand our use of PSOM for advanced US PTC and UN training and

educational objectives.

• Proposed Road Ahead:

– Develop suite of several scenarios focused on AFRICOM AOR (South

Sudan has been proposed, a PSOM scenario was done for the Africa

Analytic Baseline in 2007, but not available as an Unclassified scenario.)

– Deep dive into metrics, measures, and their supporting algorithms to

further expand PSOM’s capabilities.

– A simplified version of PSOM for training and education may be required,

especially if other PTCs are interested in using PSOM for their training and

educational programs.

Solid core of PSOM expertise currently exists at US PTC, NPS

OR and SE Departments, SEED Center and the NPS MOVES

Institute, providing tremendous potential for growth. 18