Cover: Embracing the Fog of War
Read Online

Embracing the Fog of War

Assessment and Metrics in Counterinsurgency

by Ben Connable

Download

Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 3.7 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.3 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback340 pages $36.50 $29.20 20% Web Discount

Campaign assessments help decisionmakers in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), Congress, and the executive branch shape what tend to be difficult and lengthy counterinsurgency (COIN) campaigns. Assessment informs critical decisions, including the allocation of resources and major shifts in strategy. The complex and chaotic environment of the typical COIN campaign presents vexing challenges to assessment, and efforts to overcome these challenges are mired in an overreliance on aggregated quantitative data that are often inaccurate and misleading. This comprehensive examination of COIN assessment as practiced through early 2011, as described in the literature and doctrine, and as applied in two primary case studies (Vietnam and Afghanistan), reveals weaknesses and gaps in this centralized, quantitative approach. The author proposes an alternative process — contextual assessment — that accounts for the realities of the COIN environment and the needs of both policymakers and commanders. Since this manuscript was completed in mid-2011, various elements of DoD have published new doctrine on assessment, some of which addresses criticisms raised in this report. The International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan has also revamped its assessment process.

Table of Contents

  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    Concepts That Shape Counterinsurgency Assessment

  • Chapter Three

    Centralized Assessment Theory and Pattern and Trend Analysis

  • Chapter Four

    The Effects-Based Approach to Assessment

  • Chapter Five

    Choosing Core Metrics

  • Chapter Six

    Vietnam-Era Assessment

  • Chapter Seven

    Assessment in Afghanistan

  • Chapter Eight

    Why Does Centralized Assessment Fail in Counterinsurgency?

  • Chapter Nine

    Conclusions, Recommendations, and Options

  • Chapter Ten

    A Proposed Alternative to Centralized Assessment

  • Appendix A

    Contextual Assessment Template

  • Appendix B

    Notional Example of a Brigade/Regimental-Level Contextual Assessment

  • Appendix C

    Phong Dinh Province Report

  • Appendix D

    Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, Military Assessment, September 1967

  • Appendix E

    Debate over Effects-Based Operations

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was prepared for the U.S. Government. The research was conducted within the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by OSD, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.