Balancing Regionally Aligned Force Requirements with Readiness Requirements

U. S. national-security strategy formu lates a policy of regionally aligning our land forces to efficiently and effective ly dismantle, disrupt and defeat global terrorism. Since 2012, the U. S. government’s policy has been to accomplish that regional alignment of military forces via strategic partnerships that provide the combatant commander (COCOM) the forces to enable the de terrence, disruption, pursuit and de feat of global terrorist networks, and to prevent instability within a particu lar region. In October 2013, 1st Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment – part of 2nd Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT), 4th Infantry Division – deployed to U. S. Army Central Command’s (USARCENT) area of operations in support of Operation Spartan Shield (OSS) to conduct are gionally aligned force (RAF) mission. The 1st Battalion, 67th Armor’s mission was to deter aggression and limit malign influence in U. S. Central Command’s (CENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR), enhancing regional stability and reassuring regional partners. On order, 1-67 deployed as a mission-ready force (MRF) in support of CENT COM contingency operations. Our priorities during this deployment were threefold:

• Maintain the combined-arms bat talion’s (CAB) readiness for both mission-essential task list (METL) and assigned-mission-task (AMT) requirements;

• Engage with regional and local partners; and

• Retain force protection on key terrain. The overarching question became, “How does a CAB effectively balance both mission requirements and maintain readiness?” This article will study that question with the intention of not only answering it but also providing a framework for the Army’s RAF 2020 strategic-planning guidance. We were able to reinforce strategic partnerships and retain absolute readiness for any contingency through holistic training and by combining AMTs and mission-essential tasks (METs) into a readiness program developed, executed and assessed during the deploy ment.1 RAF concept The concept of RAF is nascent in maturity but has been conceptualized in multiple documents such as the 2013 Army Strategic Planning Guidance, which reinforces the RAF’s importance as a key component of the Army of the future in 2020 and beyond. Further more, the Army’s vision statement opines this in part with, “The Army is globally responsive and regionally engaged. …” Also, a near-term objective for the Army through Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 is to transition to an RAF force fully rein forcing the four Army imperatives. Regional alignment synchronizes the Army’s strategic framework of prevent, shape and win. Aligning land forces with regions enables, empowers and provides the Army flexibility, agility and adaptability across a full range of military operations through the integration of planning, exercises, cultural skills, language skills, predictability and contingency operations. The OSS bri gade serves, albeit untasked and non aligned, as this force for USARCENT.2 USARCENT currently does not have a neatly aligned regional force and fully depends on the OSS brigade as a des ignated portion to serve as its RAF. This is not a negative comment on USAR CENT, as using the OSS brigade is a fea sible action and/or solution to an actual committed RAF force for the AOR. The assigned mission from USARCENT to brigade and finally to the CAB is the conduct of multinational exercises and operations. Each battalion was part nered with host-nation forces compatible with their organic capabilities, but – and more importantly – within the region, there was no continuity of op eration for multinational exercises and thus no continuity of an RAF at the tac tical level. The proposal is to task one CAB as the Figure 1. This chart from the 2013 Army Strategic Planning Guidance depicts the Army’s transformation from a COIN-centric force to a mission-tailored RAF in 2020 and beyond.

Figure 2. 1-67 Armor Regiment’s METL and AMT (shaded in gray) lists during OSS 13-14.

RAF that fully focuses on and conducts theater-security cooperation exercises (TSC-E) throughout the AOR – which, if done successfully, ensures continued access to the country/region and provides the U. S. regional commander with the flexibility of options for any contingency. Tasking one battalion to conduct many multinational exercises and operations enables and enforces expertise, capabilities and efficiency while simultaneously enabling the brigade to focus efforts with other non-committed forces on other contingen cy operations. The balancing act of multiple requirements enters the fray once the tasked CAB must retain its wartime readiness. Maintaining readiness As in any unit, the deployed battalions in OSS must retain their readiness through a holistic-training glidepath and training guidance that focuses on both their AMTs and METs. The re quirements of 1-67 Armor Regiment during this deployment were many. Foremost, the CAB had to maintain absolute readiness as the task-force (TF) heavy MRF for USARCENT. Within these tasks, the battalion provided the brigade commander and USARCENT commander with a flexible, tailored and responsive force through the de velopment and implementation of a heavy response company, a wheeled response company, alight response company or a heavy TF that could re spond to any contingency throughout the USARCENT and CENTCOM AORs in a matter of hours. In addition, the CAB conducted multiple TSC-Es throughout the region with the Kuwaiti Land Forces (KLF), Royal Omani Land Forces and Royal Saudi Land Forces. The TSC-Es were tailored to the “asks” or needs of the host na tion in which the TSC-E was conducted. This is important to note because some nations sought exercises designed to increase interoperability in stability or counterinsurgency (COIN) environ ments, while others sought increased interoperability within the unified-land-operations continuum based on combined-arms maneuver (CAM). The tasks were many, but nonetheless entirely realistic. To this end, 1-67 Armor Regiment met and exceeded the expectations of retaining absolute readiness balanced with the multina tional exercise requirements. The sub sequent paragraphs outline the process, procedures and training that 1-67 Armor Regiment accomplished to achieve this endstate. The 1-67 Armor Regiment used the Ar my’s design methodology to frame the problem and conceptualize the operation through lines of operations (LOs) or focus areas. The battal ion’s problem statement was, “How does Task Force Death Deal er maintain abso lute readiness while effectively balancing host-nation partnerships and regional partnerships, and while retaining force-protection requirements on key terrain?” Furthermore, once we defined the problem, the battalion framed the problem using LOs: “readiness,” “partnership” and “ready and strong,” with readiness as the primary focus. Appropriately, the battalion was nest ed with brigade’s LOs and, as such, assisted in understanding the brigade’s mission, problem and operational approach. Figure 4. Left to right, MAJ Jerome Barbour, brigade operations officer; MAJ Kevin Ryan, 1-67 Armored Regiment’s operations officer; LTC Joshua Wright, 1-67 Armored Regiment’s commander; and COL Waleed Abd Al Rahman, 35th KLF brigade commander, conduct the final stages of planning to kick off the culminating event. Figure 3. LTC Joshua Wright, 1-67 Armored Regiment’s commander, and LTC Nabeel Boqammaz, 9th KLF battalion commander, talk through their visions for Intrepid Centu rion and what they hope to collectively achieve. Boqam maz took the lead on planning Intrepid Centurion, with 1-67 Armored Regiment providing support to the overall planning process. Intrepid Centurion is a combined exercise between U. S. forces and the KLF.

Understanding the problem and oper ation is the first step in completing the desired endstate but will only advance the operation so far. The true continuation of the operation is the subse quent, yet associated, detailed plan ning that follows. This is when the balancing, combining and synergy of effort to maintain readiness, yet com plete the assigned missions, bur geoned. TSC-Es The 1-67 Armor Regiment conducted MET training and subsequently con ducted AMT training while simultane ously integrating host nations and re gional partners into the exercise con tinuum, thus maintaining absolute readiness and increasing the interop erability of host nations and regional partners. The 1-67 Armor Regiment conducted an aggressive and robust training glide path, commencing with ABCT Level 1 gunnery immediately following as sumption of the mission. The battalion sought and gained opportunities to use the space throughout the Udari Range Complex in Kuwait. The battalion concentrated on MET training within the decisive-action contemporary operating environment (COE) throughout the first quarter of FY13 with this training:

• Small-arms gunnery from prelimi nary marksmanship instruction to advanced close-quarters marks manship (CQM);

• ABCT Level l gunnery;

• Platoon-level situational-training exercises (STXs) and external eval uations (EXEVALs);

• Company-level STXs and EXEVALs; and

• Culminating with a multinational exercise with 9th Battalion, 35th KLF Brigade, conducting a combined brigade penetration named Intrepid Centurion 2014. The battalion increased its gunnery proficiency to a distinguished level for both stabilized and unstabilized gunnery, serving well to ensure the battal ion was ready to fight and win from any platform. The platoon and compa ny STXs and EXEVALs were offensive operations to penetrate an enemy obstacle and exploit their support zone. The design was a traditional combat-training-center-like lane with the platoons and companies attacking through the enemy’s disruption zone, breaching the battle zone, exploiting the support zone and transitioning to a defense. All lanes used an opposing force replicating the COE enemy from the National Training Center (NTC) and observers/controllers/trainers (O/C/ Ts), including fire markers. Intrepid Centurion 2014 not only served as the battalion’s validation for METs but also provided a mechanism to conduct a TSC-E, increasing the in teroperability of regional partners fo cused on current contingencies. More over, the battalion expertly validated all warfighting functions during this training density, including sustainment operations focused on anon-doctrinal battalion-support area designed, executed and retained by the battalion’s forward-support company and validat ed by the brigade’s support battalion. Also, the battalion validated a scalable mission-command node consisting of a tactical-operations center (TOC), administration and logistical center, and a tactical command post (CP) that was mobile and efficient to transition from on-the-move to fully-mission-capable in under seven minutes. Nevertheless, the battalion still required a scalable tactical CP that could operate through out the AOR in a heavy, wheeled or light configuration and retain the capa bility to mission-command in multiple locations simultaneously, which re mained a critical requirement for the battalion’s AMTs. Transition between MET and AMT The Death Dealer Battalion was as signed the additional tasks of conduct ing limited intervention and multina tional exercises as its AMTs. As such, the battalion had a “grand design” to conduct MET training and validation as a primary focus and then quickly transition to its AMT-training glidepath and validations. The transition at battalion level was sequential with minimal mission creep, reducing the friction and focus of effort. Each company and the battalion con ducted a five-week intensive focus on AMTs, including light and motorized training exercises, within a COIN-cen tric operating environment predominantly centered on stability-and-security tasks. This training design set conditions for the battalion’s multination al TSC-Ein Oman and Saudi Arabia. The AMT transition commenced with Figure 5. The 1-67 Armored Regiment exchanges master-gunner information with 6th KLF Brigade.

battalion-facilitated, company-operated unstabilized gunnery and culminated in company STXs within a COIN op erating environment, validating the battalion and companies for future contingencies and multinational exercises. Moreover, the battalion conduct ed multiple non-combatant evacuation STXs and exercises, thus validating a capability essential for contingency operations as well as the AMT of limited intervention. Using a similar approach as with the MET training, the battalion refrained from myopically focusing on just one warfighting function, but rather em braced a holistic approach in validating all capabilities for AMT operations. The highlighted function is the scalable mission-command nodes the battalion developed to meet theater requirements. First, the battalion developed, exercised and validated three tactical CP configurations:

• Alight configuration used for rotary-wing flyaway missions, ready to deploy with 18 hours;

• A wheeled configuration used for any contingency and/or fixed-wing flyaway mission, ready to deploy within 48 hours; and

• A heavy configuration ready to deploy within 72 hours. The battalion was able to fully operate two tactical CPs simultaneously throughout the AOR while retaining the TOC. Integrating partners The brilliancy of the grand training de sign from METL to AMT enabled a syn ergy of effort facilitating, encouraging and embracing regional-partner inte gration. For example, during METL training, the KLF participated in the small-arms gunnery, observed ABCT Level I gunnery, observed the platoon and company STXs, and fully integrated into the battalion STXs of Intrepid Centurion. During AMT training, our Kuwaiti partners once again observed and integrated into CQM and close-quarters battle drills, and observed the battalion’s stability-and-security train ing, increasing interoperability of the partnered forces. More importantly, and more strategically significant, was the full integra tion of the Royal Omani Land Forces battalion and company during Operation Inferno Creek, and of the Royal Saudi Land Forces brigade and battal ion during Operation Friendship III. The TSC-Ein Oman focused on light-infantry operations within a COIN operating environment. The TSC-Ein Saudi Arabia focused on COIN and wide-area se curity (WAS) operations. Both of these exercises increased interoperability and military-to-military/state-to-state cooperation, which was exactly what a RAF is charged to do. Conclusion To fully realize and complete the end state of an MRF nested with multiple requirements from brigade and USAR CENT while successfully balancing mul tinational exercises, the battalion effectively, efficiently and endlessly trained to maintain readiness. Over the course of the nine-month deployment, the battalion spent 183 days training in the Kuwaiti desert and surrounding region. The unit conducted 24 platoon and company CAM EXEVALs – including 24 combined-arms breaches using the Assault Breach Vehicle. The 1-67 also conducted two battalion-sized exercis es integrating both CAM and WAS, three company air-assault exercises, three multinational TSC-Es throughout the region, seven joint air-attack team (JAAT) live-fire exercises, 54 tactical ex changes and engagements with Ku waiti partnered brigades, and holistic wheeled and track services. To conclude, a habitual RAF for USAR CENT is essential and understandably nascent, but maturing hopefully by FY16. The concept – and soon the re ality – of RAF is the future of an Army that remains globally responsive and relevant through regional engagements. This provides a full range of capabilities to COCOMs in a joint, whole-of-government and/or multinational environment. Furthermore, RAF rein forces and synchronizes the Army’s strategic framework of prevent, shape and win. The friction lies with effective balanc ing of RAF requirements with readiness requirements. We as the authors of this article attempted and hopefully demonstrated a “way” to achieve success through the simultaneity of both missions. Without a doubt, 1-67 Armor Regiment effectively combined AMT training and MET training that indeed reinforced strategic partnerships and retained absolute readiness for any contingency. LTC Joshua Wright commands 1st CAB, 67th Armor Regiment, 2nd ABCT, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, CO. His past duty assignments include live-fire senior O/C/T, Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), Fort Polk, LA; battalion operations O/C/T, JRTC, Fort Polk; deputy brigade commander, 4th BCT, 1st Armor Division, Fort Bliss, TX; and bri gade S-3, 4th BCT, 1st Armored Division, Fort Bliss. His military schooling in cludes Command and General Staff College (CGSC) intermediate-level edu cation (ILE), Joint Firepower Control Course, Total Army Instructor-Trainer Course, Infantry Maneuver Captain’s Career Course (MCCC) and Infantry Ba sic Officer Leader Course (IBOLC). LTC Wright holds a bachelor’s of science degree in geology from Eastern Illinois University and a master’s of science degree in leadership and management from Troy University. LTC Wright is the recipient of the Silver Star, two Bronze Star Medals and four Meritorious Service Medals, and holds the Air Assault, Combat Infantryman’s, Expert Infantry man’sand Senior Parachutist badges, as well as wears the Ranger Tab. MAJ Kevin Ryan is the brigade operations officer (S-3) for 2nd ABCT, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson. His past duty assignments include battalion operations officer (S-3), 1st CAB, 67th Armor Regiment, 2nd ABCT, 4th Infantry Di vision, Fort Carson; interagency Fellow, Department of State, Washington, DC; task-force S-3 O/C/T, NTC, Fort Irwin, CA; and task-force assistant S-3 O/C/Tat NTC. His military schooling includes CGSC (ILE), Anti-Armor Leader’s Course, Infantry MCCC, Mechanized Leader’s Course, Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle Course and IBOLC. He holds a bach elor’s of arts degree in history from The Citadel and a master’s of arts degree in military studies from the American Public University System. He is the re cipient of three Bronze Star Medals, two Purple Hearts and two Meritorious Service Medals, and wears the Combat

Infantryman’s, Expert Infantryman’sand Parachutist badges. MAJ Matthew Stanley is the brigade executive officer with 2nd ABCT, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson. His past duty assignments include battalion executive officer and battalion operations officer, 1st CAB, 67th Armor Regiment, 2nd ABCT, 4th Infantry Division; operations officer, Headquarters 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson; and exec utive officer, Headquarters, U. S. Military Academy, West Point, NY. His mili tary schooling includes CGSC (ILE), Commander’s Safety Course, Infantry MCCC and IBOLC. MAJ Stanley holds a bachelor’s of science degree in civil engineering from U. S. Military Academy and a master’s of business administra tion degree from Portland State University. He is the recipient of the Bronze Star Medal and two Meritorious Service Medals, and wears the Air Assault, Combat Infantryman’s, Expert Infantry man’sand Parachutist badges, as well as the Ranger Tab. Notes 1 The National Security Strategy, the White House, Washington, DC, 2010. 2 Army Strategic Planning Guidance 2013, Department of the Army, Washing ton, DC, 2013. Further reading Professional-development toolkit, “Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Raymond T. Odi erno: Prevent, Shape, Win,” www.army. mil, January 2013. Professional-development toolkit, “Army will prepare for future with regionally aligned forces,” www.army.mil, February 2013. Acronym Quick-Scan ABCT – armored brigade combat team AMT – assigned-mission task AOR – area of responsibility BCT – brigade combat team CAB – combat-arms battalion CAM – combined-arms maneuver CENTCOM – U. S. Central Command CGSC – Command and General Staff College COE – contemporary operating environment COCOM – combatant command(er) COIN – counterinsurgency CP – command post CQM – close-quarters marksmanship EXEVAL – external evaluation FY – fiscal year IBOLC – Infantry Basic Officer Leader’s Course ILE – intermediate-level education JAAT – joint air-attack team KLF – Kuwaiti Land Forces LO – line of operation MCCC – Maneuver Captain’s Career Course MET – mission-essential task METL – mission-essential task list MRF – mission-ready force NTC – National Training Center O/C/T – observer/controller/ trainer OSS – Operation Spartan Shield RAF – regionally aligned force STX – situational training exercise TF – task force TOC – tactical-operations center TSC-E – theater-security cooperation exercise USARCENT – U. S. Army Central Command WAS – wide-area security Figure 6. Battalion executive officer MAJ Matthew Stanley conducts the walkthrough of the combined TOC for Intrepid Centurion. The TOC alignment joined each section representative with his respective partner, allowing a combined effort for the exercise’s onset.