ARMY AL&T
goals and design COAs to achieve them. It typically follows a highly structured and iterative development procedure, such as the Joint Planning Process or the Army’s Military Decision-Making Process. As the Center for Army Lessons Learned discusses in “Military Decision-Making Process,” these planning procedures are focused on creating tangible and refined final products. Contingency plans are developed at the combatant command level and support a wide range of opera- tions, with the most complex taking the final form of an OPLAN.
When the conditions for execution
described in an OPLAN are met, it is broken down into operations orders, which are disseminated to various eche- lons, outlining their responsibilities within the overall plan. Tis practice, known as crisis planning or crisis action plan- ning, is a reactive process that responds rapidly to real-time conditions and chal- lenges. Crisis planning is less structured than contingency planning. It involves the commander quickly determining the most suitable COA to pursue short-term goals or to capitalize on fleeting oppor- tunities, based on current information and the objectives outlined in the contin- gency plan.
TWO PIECES OF THE PUZZLE Despite their differences in context, procedure and outcome, contingency and crisis planning are not mutually exclusive processes. In practice, they are comple- mentary solutions to the complex problems planners face, and neither can be neglected for mission success. Contingency plans rely on assumptions to anticipate potential threats, enabling combatant commands to ensure that troops and materiel are prepared for operations. However, no plan can perfectly predict the actual conditions of the battlefield. Crisis plan- ning serves to adapt COAs when goals
UPFRONT LEADERSHIP
Gen. Tommy Franks, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, and former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at a Pentagon briefing in March 2002. (Photo by Robert D. Ward, via National Archives)
and circumstances change beyond the assumptions of the OPLAN. It allows for planners to flexibly respond to time-sensi- tive scenarios where unexpected factors threaten control of the battlefield.
Although both capabilities are essential for protecting American interests, the plan- ning teams’ majority of time, resources and attention are currently devoted to crisis planning rather than long-term contingency planning. According to Robert S. Ehlers Jr. and Patrick Blannin in “Integrated Planning and Campaign- ing for Complex Problems,” planning often occurs in rapid, ad hoc sessions conducted by temporary groups, rather than as a continuous procedure under- taken by a dedicated team. As a result, planning teams and their leaders tend to
focus on immediate problems rather than long-term goals or unconventional strat- egies, as Michael J. Mazarr and several co-authors identify in “Te U.S. Depart- ment of Defense’s Planning Process: Components and Challenges.”
In contrast to the AP Roadmaps’ vision of an overhauled planning pipeline, contin- gency planning today continues to be a protracted and cumbersome process rather than an essential capability. Te size and complexity of today’s military operations mean that developing a plan from start to finish still takes around 24 to 36 months. While advances have been made in tools for force management and deployment, a similar tool for planning is yet to be widely used. Since plans continue to reside in Microsoft Office and PDF documents,
https://asc.ar my.mil 43
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
