Effects-based operations

Abstract: : What is effects-based targeting, and from where did this concept come? Is it based on a coherent theory and, if so, has the US Air Force incorporated it in its doctrine and operations? Is there more yet to do? These questions from both the focus and format of this study, which examines the evolution of effects-based targeting. Specifically, this paper asks how effectively has the US Air Force incorporated the concept of effects based operations into its procedures for targeting and combat assessment. To answer this question, the study defines effects-based targeting, asserting that commanders should direct airpower against targets in ways that produce specific, predetermined, military and political effects. The study explores the historical development of effects-based targeting theory and then conducts a focused comparison of four major air operations Pointblank, Linebacker II, Desert Storm, and Allied Force in order to survey US airpower's actual combat experience with regard to effects-based operations. This study determines that senior decision makers have always been interested in creating specific effects rather than simply destroying targets; however, as a whole, the USAF has been inconsistent in employing effects-based operations across the spectrum of conflict. Amen can airpower has accomplished its most significant improvements at the tactical level of war, but is less reliable in creating operational and strategic effects. In a similar vein, airpower has become very effective at producing direct, physical effects, and it is becoming increasingly capable of creating certain widespread systemic effects. Generally, though, the ability to even predict, much less generate, specific psychological effects remains yet a hope and may, in fact, act as a virtual ceiling on the potential of effects-based operations.

Abstract: : The post cold-war environment has caused the U.S. military to reexamine the way it will conduct military operations in the future. Today technological advances and changes in the international security environment may redefine how the United States will wage war. Success in meeting the national security challenges depends on the adequacy of national military strategy and the ability of the armed forces to execute their assigned tasks. Toward that end, the United States Joint Forces Command is examining current trends and emerging concepts regarding the application of military and other elements of national power. Such an examination depends on, among other inputs, experience, which must provide a critical source for validating current and generating new concepts. From observation of the 1990-1991 Gulf War, some in the United States argue that the war portended a new construct for the "American way of war." They posit that recent conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo have also demonstrated a maturation of the new concept of effects-based operations. According to the proponents of effects-based operations, rather than relying on the old approaches of annihilation or attrition, the new way of conducting operations focuses on generating desired effects rather than focusing on objectives or the physical destruction of targets. Examination of this concept resulted in the publication of a White Paper by the J9 Concepts Department of the United States Joint Forces Command on 18 October 2001 titled Effects Based Operations. The White Paper is, according to J9, "a result of pre-concept topic area exploration and subsequent command decision to proceed with concept development." It describes effects-based operations as "an enabler of the Rapid Decisive Operations Concept." This study will analyze the concept of effects-based operations and attempt to answer the questions, what, in the end, is effects-based operations?

Abstract: This paper presents a synthetic approach for generating role playing simulation games intended to support analysts (and trainees) interested in testing alternative competing courses of action (operations) and discovering what effects they are likely to precipitate in potential ethno-political conflict situations. Simulated leaders and followers capable of playing these games are implemented in a cognitive modeling framework, called PMFserv, which covers value systems, personality and cultural factors, emotions, relationships, perception, stress/coping style and decision making. Of direct interest, as Sect. 1.1 explains, is mathematical representation and synthesis of best-of-breed behavioral science models within this framework to reduce dimensionality and to improve the realism and internal validity of the agent implementations. Sections 2 and 3 present this for leader profiling instruments and group membership decision-making, respectively. Section 4 serves as an existence proof that the framework has generated several training and analysis tools, and Sect. 5 concludes with lessons learned. Part II turns to the question of assessment of the synthesis and its usage in course of action studies.