Distributed Training and Distributed Simulations:

Imperatives for Successin

Military Operations Other than War

Warren H. Switzer, Ph.D.

AB Technologies, Inc.

IntroductionSince the End of the Cold War:

World neither peaceful nor stable International environment increasingly complex

US Military: Mission spectrum expanded Budgets reduced

Enemies less traditional Its tasks multiplied Changes Not a Matter of Choice - Driven by Major changes in the Economic,

Political, Technological, and Cultural Sectors

Many Situations Neither Caused Nor Solved by Armed Force, However, Our Opponents Will Fight, and at THEIR Level

Probabilities for Involvement in Situations: Like Desert Storm -- Remote. Like Bosnia, Haiti, Rwanda, Somalia, the Drug War, and Natural Disasters --

Virtually Certain.

Operations Other Than War (OOTW) are Inevitable

Decision for US Involvement Taken Years Ago

– Presidential Decision Directive 56 focuses on managing complex emergencies,

National Military Strategy includes: “The purpose of our Armed Forces is to deter and defeat threats . . .

we must also respond to a wide variety of other potential crises.”

And, “The security environment . . .includes threats to our country and

our interests that are not ‘war’ in the classical sense, and yet . . .

require the use of military forces, . . .. In addition, military resources

will continue to support civil authorities in executing missions such

as civil works, disaster relief, and domestic crises.” – See Presidential Decision Directive-56, Managing Complex Contingency Operations, May 20, 1997, pp. 2-3.

– John M. Shalikashvili, National Military Strategy, Executive Summary, (Washington, D.C.: The Joint Staff), 1997. P.1. and John M. Shalikashvili, National Military Strategy, (Washington, D.C.: The Joint Staff), 1997. P. 4.

Military Already Performing Many OOTW Operations

Not a Question of “If” but of “How”

“US Military” not limited to Active Component – Reserves, National Guard Roles will Expand

US borders not a limit

Nature of OOTW/Complex Emergencies

May have few “traditionally military” features Weaponry may have little use (most sophisticated almost no use)

Tendency to use military - viewed as having assets and organization, rapidly deployable, and “paid for”

May not place the military in its “normal” leadership role Focus of main effort not combat; military in supporting role

Execution habitually is reactive Most governments ignore situations hoping they will “go away” Identifying difficulties marred by poor perception and reporting Bureaucratic inertia – particularly determining who pays

The Military Response to the Changed Environment

Pragmatic reasons for less-than-enthusiastic responses Mission Considerations

Mission appropriateness Mission primacy

Psychological Considerations Budgetary Considerations Authority Legal Requirements Security

Attempts to be a stand-alone entity -- “in” but not “of” Breaks down in practice

Training Problems Associated with OOTW

Rationale - Non-Combat Training Comes at Expense of Combat Training

Simplicity - OOTW/Complex Emergencies are Not Simple

Focus on Essentials Anything Not Essential is Dead Weight Extraneous Missions mean “Mission Creep,” Greater Complexity and More Risk

Measurable Tasks in Military Terms Often Not Measurable in Non-aggregated Form Civil vs. Military Measures (order through or without force) Authority to Critique/Qualify

Team Players in a Military Sense Antipathy between military and non-military entities Difference in sensitivity to political agendas

Training Challenges

Limited Time Personnel Availability

Mission Urgency

Limited Training Facilities Some situations can have no facilities No one has all that are required

Limited Assets Available resources do not match mission requirements Funding increases are problematical – despite trends and

policy

Training Challenges (continued)

Lack of Standards at All Levels Different Criteria Define “Mission Success” OOTW success often determined by what does not

happen Affects Training (e.g., Modeling and Simulation) since

criteria are part of the applications algorithms. Hence many M&S not suitable.

Different “authorities” assume they determine “success.”

Cannot be ignored – “perceptions are realities” problem

Training Challenges (continued)

Geographical Separation Most effective organizations are not located near likely sites. In addition

to delaying response, separation dulls awareness of developments.

Cooperation and geographical separation worsened by: The international aspects of teams, Many US military assets in Reserve or National Guard formations, Objections of civilian, commercial organizations to using government

elements in places and ways that deny commercial opportunity.

Training Challenges (continued)

Over-taxed/over-extended key teams and team members Primary tasks still remain Key members used repetitively Removal of key elements cripples unit Certain regions will be more committed than others Regions most likely to incur OOTW also are likely to generate “classic”

military emergency – and are those where fewest assets are available

Training Must Be Done at Multiple Levels Vast spectrum – individual through thousands Large differences in geographical scope of probable areas Large differences in infrastructure/conditions of probable areas

Training Challenges (continued)

Over-taxed/over-extended key teams and team members

Primary tasks still remain Key members used repetitively Removal of key elements cripples unit Certain regions will be more committed than others Regions most likely to incur OOTW also are likely to generate

“classic” military emergency – and are those where fewest assets are available

Training Must Be Done at Multiple Levels Vast spectrum – individual through thousands Large differences in geographical scope of probable areas Large differences in infrastructure/conditions of probable areas

Current Status of OOTW M&S Tools Situation has not been ignoredHowever, problems with OOTW-related M&S tools existM&S Tools neither accepted as necessary or believed

correctly focused because: Tools seem reactive vice proactive Tools do not seem focused on operational requirements Most tools too slow in responding to “real world” requirements SME/bright staff officers more useful; seen as faster/better/more responsive Tools that exist are not known by or available to key staff members Operators want information, not analysis; many unaware of M&S capabilities Requisite data bases do not exist or take too long to generate No evidence that an operation failed because absence of a M&S tool

Much of this criticism is valid

Relationship Between OOTW’s Complex Environments and Available

Computer-based Tools Complex emergencies tend to adapt toward stability.

Seems to preclude need for some M&S tools and makes others appear invalid Generic structural problems

Logic Discontinuity – Linear logic principles often used where paradigm seems more like chaos theory. Since everything hinges on the assumptions, beginning with a logic mismatch is critical.

Mutually Evolving Factors - Complex situations, inherently composed of a large number of parts, continually evolve. This non-linear quality of interaction often leads to global properties strikingly different from the properties of the individual parts. Moreover, the global result cannot be predicted from prior knowledge of the parts themselves.

Learned Behavior – Those involved in complex emergencies respond to their environments in a self-teaching, self-adjusting manner. But, since there are no metrics for such learning, there is no ability to set algorithms to perform this function.

Some Effects on Training with M&S

Training Format Often a Task-Condition-Standard Construct Presupposes knowledge of all three Linear logic construct

OOTW/Complex Emergencies Constantly in Flux Detailed pre-event knowledge improbable Non-linear logic reality Unfamiliar training environment

Military’s Solution Staff officers who, as components of complex systems, accomplish the learning function and

adapt and evolve to meet conditions. Given sufficient institutional experience, training programs will emerge.

Consequently – Senior staff members often believe: Need for OOTW M&S Applications limited to time-consuming functions M&S Applications are Flawed – cannot respond to realities of situation; because of construction,

unable to predict (either define or measure) M&S Applications Inadequate – do not meet operational time constraints

Progress in M&S Training Applications

Conflict Resolution Well DevelopedLogistics Functions, R&D, Acquisition Making Rapid Progress Some Developments Show Considerable Promise:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chaos Theory Fuzzy Logic Boolean Algebra Neural Networks Baysian Analysis

However – Few actual applications for training in OOTW/complex emergencies Most M&S applications largely unknown in operational community “Human-in-the-loop” remains critical (reinforcing military’s perceptions)

Sample M&S Applications Used inTraining for OOTW/Complex Emergencies

Deployable Exercise System (DEXES) SPECTRUM Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JCATS) Situational Influence Assessment Module (SIAM) Synthetic Environments for National Security Estimates

(SENSE) Contingency Analysis Planning System (CAPS)Virtual Information Center (VIC)Argonne National Laboratory’s OOTW Management

Simulator (currently under development)

The OOTW/Complex Emergency Training Problem Remains

Currently: Ability of services (and many others) to train collectively and

concurrently approaches practical impossibility. Greater stress on computer-aided training at all levels

Training Must be

Exportable,

Affordable,

Coherent,

Effective.

Distance Learning a Possible Solution

Currently, the only way high quality, coherent, and consistent training, capable of meeting the OOTW challenge, can be conducted is through distance learning

Must be conducted within a federated framework of HLA compliant, distributed simulations

Can be packaged and used from CDs, interactive instruction in a virtual environment, or through exercises in which M&S applications create and manage a scenario with which the various team members interact

Applications at Several Levels

Individual Training – Historical strong point of military training system. But, OOTW peculiar subjects currently not a significant portion. Effectiveness probably requires combination of training modalities.

Small Team Training –Military does fairly well at small team training. Majority of military OOTW tasks included in team training. However, since in actual operation most teams are composed of US military, foreign, and civilian personnel, challenges are created, e.g., language difficulties. Nor can they be readily resolved on scene. However, distance learning, via CDs, interactive use of computer-aided simulation, and video conferencing, can help greatly. Further, the increasing pervasiveness of computer technology and knowledge may reduce bureaucratic impedance.

Applications at Several Levels (continued)

Large Team and Staff Training – The requirements are staggering. There are: vast spectrums of tasks, conditions, standards, and personnel; indeterminate periods; adverse impact on budgets and other training; absence of single authority; dissimilar agendas; and geographical separation., All are significant challenges. Team members already obligated to “primary job,” they cannot “go to the training,” the training must go to them.

Conclusion

OOTW and Complex Emergencies are inescapable; challenges to proper execution are daunting

Success depends upon quality of training and planning.Great need for training standards, scalar training, a vetting process,

and adequate budget. Distance learning/Distributed Training not substitutes, but unifying

complements to a multi-modality training program. Distance learning/distributed training conducted within a federated

framework of HLA compliant, distributed simulations can assist even if it cannot solve all the problems.

Right now, distance learning/distributed training is the only way that quality training for OOTW/Complex Emergencies can be done.