1. 1 UNCLASSIFIED Adaptive Planning Joint Staff, J-7 Joint Operational War Plans Division

2. 2 UNCLASSIFIED Title 10 Authorities for Planning Cohen-Nunn Act: Civilian Oversight of War Plans SECDEF ROLE, sec. 113: Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), with President of the United States (POTUS) approval, and after consultation with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), shall provide CJCS written policy guidance for the preparation and review of contingency plans. Such guidance shall be provided every two years or more frequently as needed … USD(P) ROLE, sec. 134: The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy [USD(P)] shall assist the SECDEF in preparing written policy guidance for the preparation and review of contingency plans and in reviewing such plans. CJCS ROLE, sec. 153: CJCS shall be responsible for… …providing for the preparation and review of contingency plans which conform to policy guidance from the President and SECDEF…... advising the SECDEF on critical deficiencies and strengths in force capabilities identified during the preparation and review of contingency plans and assessing the effect of such deficiencies and strengths…

3. 3 UNCLASSIFIED Strategic Guidance for Planning COMBATANT COMMANDERS CJCS SECDEF/CJCS PRESIDENT SECDEF Combatant Command (COCOM) Campaign and Contingency Plans National Security Strategy National Defense Strategy National Military Strategy Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP) Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF) CJCSI 3141.01D Management and Review of Campaign and Contingency Plans

4. 4 UNCLASSIFIED Operation Iraqi Freedom “Today’s environment demands a system that quickly produces high-quality plans that are adaptive to changing circumstances.” -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Adaptive Planning Roadmap, 13 Dec 2005 Options  Civilian leaders wanted multiple options  Civilian leaders wanted relative risk assessments for each option Assumptions/Assessments  Some wrong or not applicable Cumbersome planning process and outdated planning technology  Difficult to modify plan quickly and put into execution Bottom Line:  Extraordinary effort to adapt plan to rapidly changing strategic circumstances Coalition Ground Forces Ground Forces and SOF Ground Forces and Special Operations Forces (SOF)

5. 5 UNCLASSIFIED Cold War Planning  Assumed forces would be ready and available  Static conventional threats  Forces postured to mitigate time-distance challenges and convey resolve  Assumed little strategic change during a 2-3 year planning cycle  Deliberate plans informed force structure/sizing analysis Contemporary Planning  Long-term commitment of large portion of forces to Counterinsurgency (COIN) Operations  Force rotations regardless of posture  Dynamic/global unconventional and conventional threats  ~ 6 month planning cycle with continuous assessments – “Living Plans”  Contingency plans relevant and executable within resource constraints Revolution in Planning Implications for planning Joint Operations: - Need a force management construct that decrements apportioned forces not only for allocated forces but also for forces otherwise not available due to other constraints - Need a mission-based readiness reporting system and a global visibility capability - Need capability to rapidly adapt and assess plans in light of changing guidance and assumptions…and, if necessary, rapidly transition to deployment and execution

6. 6 UNCLASSIFIED Department of Defense (DoD) initiative to transform the way we plan and execute Joint Operations:  Better plans, with more options, more quickly; more SECDEF interaction with planning  Keep plans relevant in a rapidly changing environment; easily adapt plans for execution  Leverage technology to maximize planner intellectual effort (art) and minimize the labor intensive effort (science) AP process provides COCOM planners with better initial guidance, more opportunities to articulate risk:  JSCP directs combatant commands to use AP process for all top-priority contingency plans  Provokes discussion and provides a vehicle for gaining in-depth understanding of strategic and operational problems The joint capability to create and revise situationally relevant plans rapidly and to a high level of quality, as circumstances require Adaptive Planning (AP)

7. 7 UNCLASSIFIED Go From Here... Base Plan (1 COA) Operational Plan (OPLAN) 9999 Single Course of Action (COA) with One or Two Branches Branch Plan 1 Branch Plan 2 Multiple Courses of Action with Multiple Branches …To Here OPLAN 9999A OPLAN 9999B OPLAN 9999C Transforming The Way We Plan

8. 8 UNCLASSIFIED Go from here…. To here…. Near-parallel planning across echelons Continual collaboration in virtual space Sequential planning by echelon Periodic collaboration in physical space Detailed Feasibility Analysis Done Late in Process Detailed Feasibility Analysis Done Early in the Process Process jump-started by detailed, clear guidance – up frontProcess jump-started by detailed, clear guidance – up front Planning benefits from iterative discussions between SECDEF and combatant commandersPlanning benefits from iterative discussions between SECDEF and combatant commanders tt Transforming The Way We Plan

9. 9 UNCLASSIFIED Campaign Planning Construct  DoD began to address shortcomings of “contingency-centric” planning … –Introduced “Phase 0” to address pre-conflict “shaping” activities –Increased emphasis on security cooperation … with an interagency perspective –Introduced “transition-to-stability” objectives to set conditions for lasting peace –Expanded contingency planning collaboration with other agencies / international partners  e.g. recent collaboration w/State & USAID on Concept Plan (CONPLAN) guidance  While these initiatives took steps in the right direction, they required an overarching strategy to ensure proper prioritization, integration, and balance of effort A strategy-centric approach requires a new planning construct

10. 10 UNCLASSIFIED Key Linkages The Paradigm Shift  The campaign plan becomes the mechanism for organizing, integrating and prioritizing security cooperation and shaping activities –Security cooperation activities nested within the larger set of shaping activities  Security Cooperation/shaping activities should be designed to create effects that support the achievement of regional endstates –Regional objectives, in turn, support the global objectives of the National Defense and Military Strategies Security Cooperation/ Shaping Activity Supports Supports Security Cooperation/ Shaping Effect Supports Supports Regional or Functional Endstate Supports Supports Global Endstate

11. 11 UNCLASSIFIED Campaign Plan Summary  Strategy. A COCOM comprehensively integrates its steady-state, peacetime activities via the framework of a regional or functional strategy  Campaign Plan. The COCOM “operationalizes” its strategy by means of a campaign plan that: –Integrates and synchronizes its steady-state activities and operations to achieve its strategic endstates. –Ensures its various Phase 0 activities do not work at cross purposes with each other or shaping / security cooperation activities –Provides a mechanism for interagency collaboration in a region or functional area  Contingency Plans. Under this construct contingency plans become branches to the overarching campaign plan –Account for the possibility that broader campaign endstates cannot be achieved peacefully New Planning Construct

12. 12 UNCLASSIFIED 6-Phase Planning Construct: Activities and Phases Level of Military Effort Phase 0 Phases OPLAN termination Theater Shaping Deter Phase I Seize the Initiative Phase II Dominate Phase III Stabilize Phase IV Enable Civil Authority Phase V Shape OPLAN xxxx Shaping Phase 0 OPLAN xxxx Shaping Shaping Activities Deterring Activities Seizing the Initiative Activities Dominating Activities Stabilizing Activities Enabling Civil Authority Activities UNCLASSIFIED Global Shaping OPLAN Activation Trigger Event Campaign Plan

13. 13 UNCLASSIFIED Legacy Planning Process  The 24-month deliberate planning cycle – too long  Too little SECDEF influence, too late in planning cycle  Feasibility analysis time consuming and too late in the process  Plans one-dimensional – need multiple options  Plans “static” and difficult to adapt – need flexibility and periodic updating to stay relevant  No technology to support ongoing collaboration – horizontally and vertically Traditional deliberate planning is insufficiently responsive and relevant to the demands of a dynamic security environment

14. 14 UNCLASSIFIED In Progress Reviews (IPR) 6 Months to 1 Year Refine, Adapt, Terminate or Execute Plan Develop Plan Develop Concept Analyze Mission IPR-A (Assumptions) IPR-A (Assumptions) PlanningGuidance GEF/JSCP Strategic Guidance Guidance, as required Plan Approval Requires regular COCOM involvement with Joint Staff, Office of Secretary of Defense, and SECDEF Plan Development Process IPRs are central to AP and offer multiple opportunities to ensure plans are relevant, feasible, & politically acceptable IPR-C (Concept) IPR-C (Concept) IPR-F (Final) IPR-F (Final) IPR-R (Review) IPR-R (Review) 9 mo

15. 15 UNCLASSIFIED Networked on the Global Information Grid RetailSystems WholesaleSystems ServicesLogisticsSystems MilitarySealiftCommand Surface Deployment and DistributionCommand AirMobilityCommand AlliedIntel TheaterIntel Nat’lIntel Defense Logistics Logistics Systems Systems DefenseTransportationSystem Global Force Force Mgmt Mgmt DefenseReadinessSystem DefenseIntelligenceSystem SECDEFStrategicDirection COCOM “Living Plans” POTUS NationalSecurityStrategy DefenseStrategy USCoast Guard Guard USAirForce USMarineCorps USNavy USArmy A P E X At full maturity, Adaptive Planning will integrate situation monitoring, readiness, global force management, intelligence, planning, and execution Networked System of Systems Automatic Triggers Automatic Triggers TransportationCommand(TRANSCOM)