Reference MNF SOP Version 3 1 MDMP-M Step

Reference: MNF SOP Version 3. 1 MDMP-M Step 4: Course of Action Comparison Multinational Planning Augmentation Team Mobile Training Team (MPAT MTT) 07 December 2017 1

Purpose • To define Course of Action (COA) comparison • To describe COA comparison’s role in the Crisis Action Planning (CAP) process – Discuss associated task steps – Identify products resulting from COA Comparison • References – Multinational Force Standing Operating Procedures (MNF SOP) 2

MDMP-M Steps 3

COA Comparison • Facilitated staff discussion • Compare friendly courses of action against a set of established criteria – not against each other • Identify and recommend the COA that has the highest probability of success against the threat COA that is of the most concern to the Commander Objective process needing previous steps to provide governing factors 4

Why compare COAs? • To seek the COA that. . . – Gives Commander maximum flexibility – Limits enemy Commander’s freedom of action (limits effect of threat, suffering, etc. for HA/DR missions) – Has the highest probability of success within the constraints of operational factors Comparison still includes direct reference to Commander’s Intent 5

COA Comparison Conditions • Starting Conditions – MNF Commander has a good idea of potential options for mission accomplishment – Advantages and disadvantages of each proposed COA have been identified – Commander has notified CPG of comparison criteria • Ending Conditions – COAs are ranked and compared to arrive at a recommended COA 6

COA Comparison 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Update governing factors Gather staff estimates Review advantages and disadvantages Compare each COA against criteria Compare COA rankings against each other COA Review with Commander Recommend COA 7

Steps 1 -3: Comparison Criteria Gather inputs from: • Operationally significant “governing” factors that emerge during COA analysis and war gaming • Advantages & disadvantages • Staff estimates • Commander’s intent / guidance • Fixed values for joint ops (principles of war, fundamentals of joint and coalition warfare, elements of operational art) • Critical factors identified during the analysis such as logistics support, political constraints, etc. 8

Steps 1 -3: Comparison Criteria Before starting the actual comparison: • Carefully define the criteria – Common understanding – Reduce subjectivity – Eliminate redundancy – Weight each criterion • Limit amount of governing factors • Set scale criteria (is high or low better? ) Keep number of criteria as small as possible 9

Steps 1 -3: Comparison Criteria Examples • Force protection: – MNF forces have required assets to protect deployed forces from enemy attacks • Controls escalation: – MNF actions do not cause enemy force to increase in escalation • Postures forces for follow on operations: – Speed of response to the enemy action (faster is better) • Defeats enemy action: – Overwhelming combat power favors MNF • Deters enemy: – Enemy perception of MNF combat power forward (more is better) • Regional opinion: – Long-term impacts of COA on U. S. regional influence Clarity and brevity reduce miscommunication 10

Step 4: Compare COA Against Criteria Options for Comparison • • Positive-neutral-negative comparison Un-weighted matrix comparison Weighted matrix comparison Descriptive comparison Summarize key points to assist Commander’s decision-making 11

Step 4: Positive-Neutral-Negative 12

Step 4: Unweighted Comparison 13

Step 4: Weighted Comparison 14

Step 4: Descriptive Comparison 15

Steps 5 & 6: COA Comparison & Review • COA scores are compared • Small-group COA review with Commander will allow comments before formal recommendation • Subordinate/component commanders or MNF partners may have insight or perspective to add that should be considered before formal recommendation Pre-recommendation brief review allows for whole team to give buy in or perspective 16

Step 7: Recommend a COA Determine a recommended COA • C 3 or C 5 reviews and records individual staff recommendations • In the event of indecision, the staff can consider COA modification • Decision does not need to be solely based on math Brief the Commander • Sample Agenda • Purpose, Agenda, Enemy Situation, Friendly Situation, Higher Mission, CTF Mission, Changes to Assumptions (etc. ), COA 1, COA 2, COA 3, COA Summary, COA Analysis, COA Comparisons, COA Recommendation • Commander Approval or Modification 17

COA Comparison 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Update governing factors Gather staff estimates Review advantages and disadvantages Compare each COA against criteria Compare COA rankings against each other COA Review with Commander Recommend COA 18

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 factor. 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 19

MDMP-M Steps 20

Discussion

Guidance for COA Comparison • Use the following governing factors / criteria for comparison: • • Speed – in taking supporting actions which enable delivery of relief goods and services (appropriate disaster relief ; through appropriate agencies / organizations) Economy of force – maximize the benefit with the most efficient use of force capabilities which supports the delivery of disaster relief 22

Guidance for COA Comparison • Conduct “positive – neutral – negative” comparison • Also provide a Descriptive Comparison 23