Stabilization: A New Approach to Whole of Government Operational Planning and Execution

Abstract

The United States has a compelling national security interest to promote stability in select fragile and conflict-affected states. Such an operational environment is complex and requires a whole-of-U.S. Government response, coupled with non-governmental and international partners and supported by the affected nation to achieve their own national goals. Since 1947, the national security system has struggled to handle effectively the range and complexity of the existing global threats and opportunities. As the operating environment has changed rapidly since 1947, the response to that environment has also evolved, but not sufficiently fast to achieve successful campaigns in a more efficient and shorter duration engagements. Over the past thirty plus years, numerous academic institutions, think tanks and governmental agencies have identified and catalogued these problems and challenges. From the Eberstadt report to Congress in October 1945 through the Defense Science Board Summer study of 2016, stacks of studies and reports have called for improvements in the national security system, as well as a Whole-of-Government (WoG) approach to national security concerns. These studies call for improvement of the U.S. Government (USG) ability to assess, decide, plan, deliver, and adjust operation and implementation plans, employing a whole of government strategy. However, as the Congressional Research Service in 2012 concluded, there is no consensus among agencies on how to fix the perceived problems.1 Numerous reforms have occurred, and the need for a holistic approach has been understood, but the basic system remains of stove-piped, non-integrated, horizontal, systemic approaches.2 Since the 1990s, the USG has striven to absorb the strategic lessons from Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia, Libya, and Syria. These experiences underscored the benefits of applying all of the instruments of national power to complex problems.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Jun 05, 2018
Accession Number
AD1124725

Entities

People

  • Bill Flavin
  • Richard A. Love
  • Richard Coplen

Organizations

  • United States Army War College

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Biomedical
  • C4I
  • Cyber
  • Energy and Power Technologies
  • Engineered Resilient Systems
  • Human Systems
  • Space

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Business Administration
  • Combatant Commanders
  • Contingency Operations (Military)
  • Department Of State
  • Drug Interdiction
  • Employment
  • Geographic Regions
  • Health Services
  • Humanitarian Assistance
  • Interagency Coordination
  • International Organizations
  • Knowledge Management
  • Lessons Learned
  • Management Personnel
  • Military Education
  • Military Organizations
  • Military Science
  • National Security
  • Organizational Structure
  • Personnel Management
  • Students
  • Terrorism
  • Unified Combatant Commands
  • War Colleges
  • Warfare

Fields of Study

  • Political science

Readers

  • Defense Acquisition Program Management
  • Military and Counterinsurgency Studies.
  • Systems Analysis and Design