P1253037267kFNvj

1
Strategic Level Interagency Planning ProcessA
Work In Progress
National Defense University, Institute for
National Strategic Studies, Interagency
Transformation, Education, After Action Review
(ITEA) Program
2
Who Are We Talking About When We Say
Interagency?
3
Players and ConnectionsOriginal Conception
State
DoD
NSC
Intel
4
IA Players and Connections Todays Reality
Congress
DOJ
HHS
Intel
OMB
OSD
JCS
USUN
NSC
State
NGOs
Treas
AID
DHS
Foreign Govts
DOE
5
Environment
6
The New International System

• Being formed by three revolutions
• Geostrategic
• Information/globalization
• Role of government

7
Transnational Threats

• By-product of globalization
• Bypass nation-states
• Difficult to identify and counter
• Organized crime
• terrorism
• information warfare
• weapons of mass destruction proliferation
• drug and people trafficking
• money laundering

8
Instruments of National Power
Military
Political
Economic
The Situation
Diplomatic
Law
Informational
9
The Spectrum of Engagement
Level of Involvement
State/Others Primary
State/Others Primary
DOD Primary
Time
State/Others Primary Effort (Actual)
DOD Primary Effort (Actual)
10
The Spectrum of Engagement
Level of Involvement
Crisis/Conflict
Time
State/Others Primary Effort (Goal)
DOD Primary Effort (Goal)
---------- State/Others Primary Effort (Actual)
Shortening military wartime operations
11
Stabilization and Reconstruction Gap
12
Stabilization and Reconstruction Gap
13
Stabilization and Reconstruction Gap
14
Interagency Process
15
Interagency Operations

• Not an organization - a process
• Day to day interaction within agreed policy
• Guidance leading to implementation
• Mechanism for elevating disputed issues
• Resolved at lowest levels or up to DC
• Crisis-generated issues
• Deliberate or rapid in nature

16
Participants Follow Simple Rules

• The players really follow three basic rules to
  make decisions

• Defend Agency Interests
• Appear Responsive to Crisis
• Avoid irrevocable decisions

17
The Interagency Structure
Built on Consensus!
President
Principals Committee
Deputies Committee
Policy Coordination Committees
The Intent is to take the interests of all
Agencies, work the details, and come up with a
way that is best for the Nation
18
Interagency Process
National Security Council (NSC)
Principals Committee (PC)
Policy Coordination Committee (PCC)
POLICIES
Deputies Committee (DC)
NSC
JCS
State
OSD
DCI
USUN
Treas
19
Planning
20
Three Levels of Planning

• Political-Military Planning Nature of threat to
  peace and security? Purpose and mission?
  Sponsor? Desired outcome? Strategic concept?
  Consensus? Level of involvement? Lead nation or
  organization? Contributions and commitments?
• Strategic Planning or Campaign Planning
  Strategic imperatives? Initial objectives?
  Subsequent objectives? Forces and Resources?
  Staging bases? Pre-training? Sequencing?
  Deployment? Sustainment? Rotation?
• Operational or Mission Planning Employment?
  Tempo? Direction and Control? Unit Missions?
  Priorities of Effort? Coordination?
  Reconstitution? Next Mission?

21
Pol-Mil Advance Planning Process
Guidance for Advance Planning Initiates
interagency planning effort. Includes regional
strategy, crisis scenario, U.S. aims, scope of
effort, and initial information requirements
Phase 4 Policy Planning Document - Builds
consensus of purpose mission - Clarifies
mission area tasks Phase 5 Interagency
Pol-Mil Plan - Develops a pol-mil strategy
- Integrates agency efforts - Establishes
mission organization, concept of implementation,
and interagency management - Directs Mission
Area tasks Phase 6 Agency Operational
Planning - Completes agency plans -
Designates assets, resources issues Phase 7
Interagency Rehearsal - Confirms playbook for
final countdown - Reviews agency plans -
Synchronizes initial efforts
Phase 1 Mission Analysis / Staff Estimate -
Identifies major mission areas of a response -
Outlines mission area objectives, tasks,
showstoppers, and policy questions Phase 2
Strategic Outcomes Projection Policy Issues
Paper - Forecasts desired ends for an operation
- Clarifies policy issues Phase 3
Strategic Approach - Outlines the USG approach
to the crisis -- core strategy to strengthen
U.S. posture, -- preventive strategies, --
crisis response strategy, -- escalation
control strategy, and -- hedging strategies for
geo-strategic shifts - Recommends interagency
preparations



22
Pol-Mil Planning vs. Agency Planning

• Political-Military Planning
• Advance Planning
• Policy and Strategic Level
• Aim is to create policy options
• to advance U.S. interests at stake
• Policy Planning integrating desired policy
  aims and harmonizing ways over time to advance
  U.S. interests
• Multi-agency with some multi-national and
  multi-lateral actors involved
• Negotiated per value judgements of policy
  makers and equities of the agency
• Harmonization of policy aims and mission area
  tasks

• Agency Planning
• Deliberate Planning
• Regional and Operational Level
• Aim is to achieve an agency objective
  to accomplish an agency mission
• Campaign Planning coordinating ways and
  agency means over time to achieve the desired
  agency objective
• Single agency with some multi-national and
  multi-lateral input
• Calibrated per agency doctrine internal
  processdivisive policy issues are to be resolved
  higher
• Synchronization of agency efforts

23
The Problem

• Strategic planning for crisis response among
  military and civilian agencies is disconnected
• - structural differences among agencies
• - competing bureaucratic interests
• - differences in what planning is all about
• - information sharing practices
• - time pressures
• - lack of understanding of planning by other
  agencies
• We lack a coherent approach to strategic
  planning that is multi-agency in nature and
  extends planning and coordination to
  multinational and multilateral partners for
  implementation

24
Interagency Pol-Mil Planning Lessons

• Assess all aspects of the situation
• Listen to all key players and their objectives --
  the best solutions are home grown
• Gain multilateral consensus on strategic purpose
• Consult with coalition partners to strengthen
  plan if necessary
• Formulate strategy (pol-mil plan) integrating
  diplomatic, military, humanitarian, police and
  other efforts. Avoid sharp civil-military lines.
• Track underlying assumptions of the Presidents
  policy decision and over time evaluate the
  overall approach to achieve the desired end state
  as the operation unfolds
• Establish mechanisms for integration at all
  levels
• Prepare work hard to achieve success. Be
  flexible and adjust

25
Interagency Transformation, Education and After
Action Review (ITEA)
26
Need for Interagency Training

• Interagency management can make or break an
  operation
• Interagency process is largely ad hoc and
  changing
• High turnover in personnel
• No mechanism for passing on lessons learned
• No practice of critical functions

27
Educational Objectives

• Create a cadre of professionals at the strategic,
  theater-strategic and operational levels familiar
  with interagency coordination and planning
  practices and initiatives
• Establish ongoing mechanism for interagency
  community to learn from mistakes and build on
  successes
• Provide a non-threatening environment for
  discussion and exchange of ideas
• Provide a forum in which to exercise planning and
  decision-making tools
• Facilitate growth of interagency relationships
  and interaction prior to crisis situation

28
Benefits

• Development and refinement of planning and
  decision making tools
• Better collective understanding of interagency
  tasks, responsibilities and challenges
• Dissemination of lessons learned
• Skills building and prior experience of
  participants
• Establishment of integrated training program

29
Target Audiences

• Initial Training
• Those inbound to interagency assignments, such as
  Joint Interagency Coordination Groups (JIACG) at
  the combatant commands
• Refresher Training
• Regular updates for those in practice
• Short-Notice Training
• Key personnel without prior exposure
• Executive Level
• Interagency CAPSTONE equivalent program

30
The Way Ahead
31
Interagency Coordination in Post Conflict
Reconstruction

• ADM Cebrowski Project

32
Recommendations

• Support legislation mandating IA coordination,
  planning and integration
• Establish JIACG resources and funding
• Develop a National Interagency Coordination
  Group (NIACG) to plan for post-conflict recovery
  and reconstruction operations
• Require training and education for non-DOD
  departments/agencies
• Support current NDU-ITEA program
• Assign skill code qualifiers for completed
  training

33
Recommendations

• Involve NGOs in planning as early as possible and
  support their participation in command post
  exercises
• Implement NSPD XX and promulgate through IA
  community
• Host a Fall 2003 conference at NDU on IA
  coordination and planning for post-conflict
  implementation
• Fund JFCOM J-9s major mission task of planning
  for IA coordination and implementation

34
Goldwater Nichols II
35
Recommendations

• Need to build a more robust capacity for
  engagement in complex contingency operations in
  the NSC and civil departments and agencies
• Designation of a responsible and accountable
  individual to take charge of these events and
  oversee the implementation of national strategy
• Standardization of a planning approach to
  addressing both overseas and domestic challenges
  (implicit in this is the need for education)
• The requirement to develop a capability for a
  rapidly deployable civil cadre of stabilization
  and reconstruction specialists who engage in the
  immediate post conflict timeframe

36
Recommendations

• The establishment of a training and educational
  center to impart learning on the process of
  interagency coordination and planning
• The establishment of enhanced jointness at the
  coalition level to more efficiently conduct field
  operations
• The development of an interagency parallel to the
  joint service officer corps with similar
  incentives and opportunities for professional
  education and training

37
Questions?