Military Review English Edition January-February 2017 | Page 60
Complex Intelligence
Preparation of the
Battlefield in Ukrainian
Antiterrorism Operations
Victor R. Morris
T
he U.S. Army Europe Joint Multinational
Readiness Center’s Raptor 14 team supported
“Battle Staff Attack the Network/Network
Engagement and Company Intelligence Support Team”
training for Ukrainian armed forces officers conducting antiterrorism operations September 2015 at the
International Peacekeeping and Security Center (IPSC)
in Yavoriv, Ukraine. The training team determined
traditional doctrinal tools for intelligence preparation were inadequate to help Ukrainian intelligence
staffs understand their operational environment (OE).
Consequently, the team adapted the process in a way
that would account for
Victor R. Morris is an
group dynamics and
irregular warfare and
how they influence the
counter-IED instructor
behavior of populations
at the Joint Multinational
relevant to the OE, conReadiness Center in
sistent with a concept
Germany. He has conductcalled complex intellied partnered training in
gence preparation of the
sixteen European nations
battlefield, or complex
to include Ukraine, with
IPB. This experience
four NATO centers of exserves as a case study
cellence, and at the NATO
on how cross-functionJoint Warfare Center. A
al staffs and company
civilian contractor and
command teams can
former U.S. Army officer,
improve problem framhe has experience in both
ing, understand relecapacities in Iraq and
vant issues at all levels,
Afghanistan.
and inform operational
58
planning. Complex IPB can support the Army’s doctrinal intelligence preparation of the battlefield process and
the joint process called joint intelligence preparation of the
operational environment (JIPOE).
From IPB to Complex IPB
According to Army Techniques Publication
2-01.3, Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield, an
Army intelligence staff (1) defines the OE, (2) describes environmental effects on operations, (3) evaluates the threat, and (4) determines the threat.1 The
staff uses this four-step process to analyze certain
mission variables in the area of interest for a specific
operation.2 The mission variables analyzed are the
enemy, terrain, weather, and civil considerations.3 The
goal of Army IPB is to provide Army commanders
and staffs the information necessary to develop courses of action and make decisions.4
The IPB doctrine states that all four of the mission variables—including civil considerations—and
their interactions must be analyzed if the process is to
be effective. Staffs must “determine how the interactions of friendly forces, enemy forces, and indigenous
populations affect each other.”5 However, in practice,
the process tends to emphasize the enemy rather
than holistically integrate the civil considerations. For
instance, staffs might not adequately consider multigroup interconnectedness, micro decision making,
and population behavior evaluation (i.e., human-domain-centric analysis). Thus, if an OE and its dynamics
January-February 2017 MILITARY REVIEW