APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

How to Win a Counterinsurgency Campaign

Effective Integration of Assessments and Information 

into the Planning of Military Operations

By Michael J. Gurney

 U.S. Soldiers participate in closing ceremonies for Iron Sword in 2014 in Pabrade, Lithuania.

 Such exercises display NATO solidarity to target audiences and provide supporting actions

 for messaging. 

 Photo by Staff Sgt. Keith Anderson (Defense Video and Imagery Distribution System).

Modern Day Combat Complexities

Modern military campaigns in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have taught U.S. Commanders that tactical 

level success does not necessarily correlate to strategic level victory. However, as demonstrated in Grenada, Panama, and the first Desert Storm War in Iraq, U.S. forces have proven they can be victorious in short term conflicts. 

Perhaps the problem is a combination of inadequate assessments and communications strategies. Both have been 

shown to be important to long term counterinsurgency operations.

Long duration conflicts, such as Counterinsurgency Campaigns, require comprehensive assessments that 

help refine organizational activities towards unit objectives. To that point, current doctrine mandates assessments 

be integrated into the planning of military operations.1 However, many units merely craft assessments concurrent 

to operational planning. Effective integration must include the nesting of required actions to assessment indicators. In other words, the actions our organization execute should affect the factors that indicate our success.

Furthermore, most short duration operations require limited communication with the local populace and are 

primarily focused on reducing civilian casualties and collecting information. Yet, longer conflicts (most often with 

high level strategic implications) require in-depth communication strategies that include long term messaging

APOJ 1

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

Army Press Online Journal is published bi-monthly by The Army Press to provide cutting edge content on topics related to the Army 

and national defense. The views expressed belong to their authors, and do not necessarily represent the official view of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or any other government institutions or agencies. APOJ 1
APOJ 2

 APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

plans to multiple target audiences.

Assessments and communication strategies are two areas where technological advancement does not guarantee success. As evidenced by U.S. efforts in Vietnam and Soviet attempts in Afghanistan, despite technological 

superiority, there is no substitute for communicating and influencing the local populace in counterinsurgency operations. Technology can assist with some of the tasks required (communication methods, metrics collection, etc). 

However, the influence of people is somewhat of an art that, to this day, cannot be mastered by machines. Besides 

an overconfidence in technology, a clear understanding of “key terrain” is another area of concern. 

Conventional warfare assessments of the past primarily focused on Battle Damage Assessment and attainment of key terrain. Historically, key terrain was geographically focused. Army Doctrine Reference Publication 

1-02, Terms and Military Symbols, defines key terrain as “any locality or area, the seizure of which affords a marked 

advantage to either combatant.”2 However, in his 2010 Senate Confirmation Hearing, General Petraeus inferred 

that in counterinsurgency operations the key terrain is the human terrain.3 This shift in practical definition provides a challenge to Commanders and staffs in determining their progress towards success. Physical key terrain 

is not likely to move. As long as a Commander has physical control of the hill he, or she, can assess it as theirs. 

Comparitively, a populace group can change their minds and quickly withdraw support for friendly efforts. The 

equivalent of the hill moving from under the troops as they sleep. This means that counterinsurgencies require 

consistent assessment to keep accurate situational awareness. 

Dr. Stephen Downes-Martin, research professor at the Naval War College, conducted a six week visit to 

Afghanistan to observe how assessments were being conducted. Although its not likely to represent all of the 

deployed US forces in Afghanistan, some of his observations were:

Overoptimism: There is an institutional drive to produce “Good News Stories.” 

Metrics Collection Overload: Inadequate selection of specific and relevant indicators overloads collection 

capabilities. Some indicators that were considered too difficult to collect were completely ignored.

Lack of Numbers Based Theory: Among several arithmetic issues, indicators were averaged to determine 

overall progress towards objectives. As all indicators are not equal in terms of their indication of progress, 

they should be weighed. 

Simplistic Color Coding: Simple Color coded graphics without supporting evidence does not provide an 

accurate perspective and is counterproductive to determining effective adjustments to current operations and 

activities. 

Logic Failures: No process in place to “roll up” assessments through echelons of command and lack of historic data to make accurate comparisons. 

No Compelling Combination of Assessments: No credible process to combine the assessments of objectives 

across Lines of Operation into an overall assessment.

No Compelling Connection between Objectives and Metrics: Most commands do not appear to have a 

clear connection between objectives and the indicators they are collecting.4

To properly assess counterinsurgency efforts we must recognize that an insurgency is a symptom of problematic conditions. Our focus for operations and their assessments should be on removing conditions that insurgents exploit to foster support for their activities. Our success requires a shift in focus from “enemy attrition” to 

“condition attrition.” There are three important factors to consider with this shift:

1) Most of the conditions are linked to the local populace, either directly or indirectly.

2) The local populace is subject to their “perception” of the conditions.

3) The insurgent threat typically has insight into the long term narratives that guide the local populace perceptions.
APOJ 3

 APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

These important considerations point to the criticality of understanding and effectively operating in the Information Environment. Essentially, they shed light on successfully handling the key domain in counterinsurgency 

efforts.

Indeed, a 2013 Strategic Landpower Task Force (SLTF), comprised of senior leaders from the Army (to include the Special Operations Command) and Marine Corps, convened to discuss, among other things, the integration of the “Human Domain” into the planning and execution of military operations to set the conditions for decisive outcomes. The result was the white paper, ”Strategic Landpower: Winning the Clash of Wills.” The document 

highlights the requirement for identifying and achieving human objectives in the formulation and execution of 

strategy, operational plans, and tactical actions.5 In other words, effective communication strategies are required. 

The benefits of an effective Communications Strategy will include well-synchronized and deconflicted 

messaging efforts. Primarily, because we will plan actions that support our communications plan and that target 

audiences will observe. Friendly forces should strive to beat the threat when it comes to effective message delivery. Preventing an opportunity for the threat to use effective propaganda by planning, producing, and delivering 

effective friendly messaging quicker than he does is a preferred method. Counterpropaganda is defensive in nature 

since the threat got their message to the target audience before us. For this reason, planning messaging as part of 

the operations plan is critical. Equally important, predictive analysis can assist planners in identifying potential 

messaging opportunities for the threat and friendly forces.

The development of an Information Operations centric theater campaign plan that uses combat operations and other activities to influence threat elements, populace groups, and other applicable audiences may be the 

way forward. An effective strategy will need to drive activities and messaging towards improving metrics of developed assessment indicators.

Combined complexities that include varying political landscapes, conflicting agendas of Coalition Partners, 

the global messaging reach of social media, sensitivities and considerations of numerous populace groups, and a 

flexible and dynamic threat that effectively adjusts Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) may indicate that 

outright military victory is an overly ambitious endeavor. Managing the problem may be the very best that we can 

do. If so, effective assessment plans and communication strategies will be critical to making swift and meaningful 

adjustments to prevent the threat from outpacing us.

Assessment Framework: Foundation of the Communications Strategy 

Assessments help us compare conditions of the past with those that currently exist in order to determine necessary adjustments toward making future conditions equivalent to those listed in the operations endstate. The most 

important factor in maintaining an accurate level of comparison is ensuring the process stays the same from one 

reporting period to another. Accuracy is also affected when echelons of command use different assessment methods. As noted in Dr. Stephen Downes-Martin’s observations, it is key that echelons of command are able to feed 

into each others’ assessments.6 Well nested assessments ensure organizations at all three levels of war are working 

toward the same overarching endstate. The contrary is likely to result in misused resources and operational disconnects with higher headquarters. 

It is clear the Department of Defense is trying to improve their efforts. In 2011, the Joint Staff, published the 

Commander’s Handbook for Assessment Planning and Execution in an attempt to lay a foundation for assessments 

across the force. Some headquarters, particularly those at the theater-strategic and operational levels, may include 

a dedicated group of Operational Research and Systems Analysis (ORSA) experts that specialize in formal assessments and various assessment products.7

 However, the leadership and staffs of Brigade Combat Teams, battalions, 

and companies also need a simple, yet reliable, model that can assist decisionmaking and logically feed into higher 

headquarters assessments. Despite the employment of skilled ORSA personnel and the publication of the handbook, U.S. forces have struggled with assessing their effectiveness.
APOJ 4

 APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

An equally important problem exists with communication strategies. As Daniel Nasaw writes in The 

Guardian, Admiral Mike Mullen, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has criticized American efforts in 

Afghanistan by writing that the gap between promised improvements and actual developments harms credibility 

of the U.S. message.8 In other words, target audiences are not observing what the messages are saying.

In June of 2010, the U.S. Joint Forces Command published The Commander’s Handbook for Strategic Communication and Communication Strategy,

9

 a non-authoritative supplement to limited communication/engagement 

doctrine. The publication addresses some of the deficiencies that Admiral Mullen points to by providing process 

that nests within the Joint Operation Planning Process. However, it is tailored for higher level commands with 

complexities that may frustrate tactical level Commanders and staffs. Nevertheless, the publication may have 

made a mark on the communication strategy issue.

In 2012, General John Allen, then Commander of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)in 

Afghanistan, addressed participants of the 5th North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) Conference of Strategic Communication. In his speech General Allen noted 

that “information must be treated in the same vein as a component of combined arms, indeed as a weapon.” He 

goes on to state that strategic communication must reach multiple target audiences around the world. He emphasizes four primary elements:

Immediacy: Getting the word out first. However, staying truthful. This relies on swift and accurate reporting and a clear plan on what is to be collected.

Proximity: The message must emanate from where it is most impactful. This requires a comprehensive understanding of each target audience and their relevance to the mission.

Voice: The message must come from a credible source. Similar to proximity, it relies on a thorough knowledge of each target audience and their relevance to the mission.

Composition: The content of each message must be carefully crafted for each target audience.10

The content of General Allen’s speech indicates that his staff was using a process to develop their messaging. In 

addition, he notes a level of success through shift of strategic dialogue throughout his time in command. 

Certainly, both the Commander’s Handbook for Assessment Planning and Execution and the Commander’s 

Handbook for Strategic Communication and Communication Strategy are improvements to U.S. efforts. However, 

our proposed model differs in that the planning of operations, particularly the development of Courses of Action 

(COA) and Concept of Operations (CONOPs), relies on the development of an accurate assessment plan and 

communication strategy. To some extent it is a reverse planning sequence. If we take the time to identify what 

things will look like when we achieve our objectives (Measures of Effectiveness and indicators), we can focus our 

actions and messaging on relevant factors. 

For our model, the assessment framework will serve as the foundation of our Communications Strategy by 

connecting our messaging efforts to the established assessment indicators. This will assist planners in developing 

mutually supporting friendly force tasks and messaging that are likely to positively affect each of the indicators. 

There are a total of 11 steps in the development of an assessment plan with an accompanying communications 

strategy.
APOJ 5

 APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

Step 1: Identify Objectives and Effects

Step 2: Determine Measures of Effectiveness (MOE)

Step 3: Determine Indicators, Identify Collection Methods, and Determine Applicable Tasks

Step 4: Select Target Audiences associated with Indicators and the desired behaviors for each

Step 5: Identify Appropriate Themes

Step 6: Develop Supporting Messages

Step 7: Determine Supporting Actions, Collection Requirements/Methods

Step 8: Craft Talking Points

Step 9: Identify Task Delivery Methods

Step 10: Determine Responsible Organizations

Step 11: Capture Measures of Performance (MOP), Collection Methods and Applicable Tasks

(Figure 1)

As you read through the steps refer to figures 3 and 4 for realistic examples of threat and populace centric effects 

for an individual objective. Although one example is provided for each step, real world planning efforts would 

obviously require multiples. For example, there would normally be more than one indicator for each Measure of 

Effectiveness (MOE). In Figure 4, MOE 1 is the level of populace support to the District One Government. There 

are many ways to capture the level of populace support. Indicator 1 lists just one example: the number of local 

populace participants in District One Shuras.

Step 1: Identify Objectives and Effects: Development of the organization’s assessment plan begins once planners 

identify unit objectives. In theory, commanders aim to achieve objectives through 

generated effects. Some effects are more important toward the 

achievement of objectives than others. Therefore, they should 

be weighed to provide a relative balance during assessments. 

Planners reduce risks by ensuring Commanders and key staff 

members have input to the weights and other subjective areas 

that might present themselves. Joint Publication 5-0, Joint Operation Planning, The Planner’s Handbook for Operational Design13, Army Doctrinal Reference Publication 5-014, and 

Joint Publication 3-13, Information Operations15 provide additional information on objectives and effects. 

Step 2: Determine Measures of Effectiveness (MOE): MOEs are categories in which we will organize our indicators. Planners should understand that not all MOE are equally indicative of the associated desired effect. For 

instance, an example desired effect might be: 

Increase populace confidence in local government

Two appropriate MOEs might be:

1) Level of populace requests for government security assistance

2) Level of populace participation in government sponsored community events 

Although both are indicative of populace confidence in the government, 

requests for security assistance likely displays a higher level of confidence 

than participating in community events. The difference would be indicated

 Assessment

Communication

Strategy

Assessment

Joint doctrine defines an 

effect as the physical or 

behavioral state of a system

that results from an action, 

a set of actions, or another 

effect.11

By Joint definition, an objective is a clearly defined, 

decisive, and attainable goal 

toward which every operation is directed.12

FM 6.0, Commander and Staff Organization and Operations, describes 

Measures of Effectiveness as a criterion used to assess changes in system 

behavior (note the relationship to the 

“Effect” definition: A physical or behavioral state of a system...), capability or operational environment that 

is tied to measuring the attainment 

of an end state, achievement of an 

objective, or creation of an effect.16
APOJ 6

 APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

in the weight of each MOE. The Joint Staff J-7 Commander’s Handbook for Assessment Planning and Execution and 

Joint Publication 3-13, Information Operations provide additional information on weighing Measures of Effectiveness and Indicators.

Step 3: Determine Indicators, Identify Collection Methods, and Determine Applicable Tasks: 

MOE Indicators are the things we actually count (objective data), with one 

exception. We will want to include subjective data into our assessment plan to fill 

in objective data gaps and to reinforce analysis. This would 

include Ground Force Commander Assessments, opinions of Subject 

Matter Experts, etc. Planners coordinate with other organizations to share collection results and minimize the burden on their organization. 

Planners work to identify friendly force tasks that have potential to influence 

the indicator values towards success. By weighing the indicators, MOE, and desired effects, staff members can 

analyze and make recommendations to the Commander based on relative task value towards the achievement of 

unit objectives. Moreover, these weights provide us with another important consideration to ensure resources are 

focused on informed decision making and mission success. Some form of Commander’s Critical Information Requirements (CCIR) can be established from our indicators. For example, what questions would we need answered 

to facilitate the Commander’s decision to employ capabilities to affect the number of IED attacks on security force 

convoys in a particular geographic area? An example might be: How does the threat transport IED materials into 

the area?

Step 4: Select Target Audiences associated with Indicators and the desired behaviors for each 

Planners identify specific target audiences that can affect the indicators. Several target audiences may be 

aligned with a single indicator. It is important to consider that a comprehensive review of target audiences includes threat groups and 3rd party organizations (State Actors, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), etc.). 

Additionally, planners should identify what the desired action, or inaction, of each target audience will be with 

respect to the indicator. 

Step 5: Identify Appropriate Themes

The next step in the process is identifying themes associated with each of the target audiences and the 

desired actions/inactions. Themes are an important tool to help planners organize 

messages. In the same manner that Lines of Operation (LOO) link decisive points 

to operational objectives, themes provide a critical linkage between objectives, 

effects, desired target audience behaviors, and the corresponding messages. Ideally, 

choose 1-4 words that identify the general category for which your team will develop your messaging. Appropriate themes could include “Regional Security Cooperation, Community Development, etc.” Since themes are general categories, they also 

assist planners with understanding which of their developed messages may support higher headquarter messaging. 

The goal is to identify the basic categories of messaging that are associated with each target audience and will affect 

each of the identified indicators. 

Step 6: Develop Supporting Messages 

Developing effective messages across a multitude of target audiences can be a complicated task. Different 

target audiences may need to hear different messages in support of a common theme. Enabled by social media, 

the internet, and telecommunications, most target audiences have access to messages delivered to the others. This 

significantly increases the chances of conflicting messages if adequate deconfliction is not conducted. 

As a simple example, looking at a desired effect of: 

Increased Coalition Force Support in Afghanistan.

The Army’s FM 6.0 defines 

indicators as items of information that provide insight into 

Measures of Effectivess or Measures of Performance (defined 

later).17

Themes allow planners to organize 

and relate general categories of 

messaging with target audiences 

and the indicators we expect them 

to affect.
 APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

There are multiple target audiences associated with this desired effect. Among other possibilities, there are the 

international populace, local Afghan leaders, current Coalition Partners, and potential Coalition Partners. Understanding the messages and supporting actions that each 

target audience needs to hear and observe can greatly increase chances of success. In 

addition to obvious target audiences, it is important that Coalition Commanders and 

staffs develop efforts to sustain Coalition partners. Below are two examples of the 

complex messaging strategy that must be in place in order to sustain long term Coalition efforts.

In 2001, British Prime Minister Tony Blair sold the War in Afghanistan as an 

opportunity for the UK to solve its drug problem. More than 90% of heroin finding its way to the UK starts its 

journey in Afghanistan. Therefore, it should not have been a surprise that the responsibility for Regional Command-South was given to the UK, which included the areas of Afghanistan where most of the opium is cultivated.18 What the UK needed to see and hear in terms of supporting messages to increase support to the Coalition 

may have had less to do with the number of Taliban fighters killed in action and more to do with the availability of 

heroin within the UK.

While the UK’s purpose was to lower the availability of drugs, Estonia’s may have been security related. 

Estonia is a relatively small country, whose history includes being forcefully incorporated into the Soviet Union in 

1940. In fact, Estonia didn’t regain its independence until after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.19 What 

was Estonia’s purpose for joining the Coalition in Afghanistan? It is likely that Estonia demonstrated its commitment to NATO in hopes that NATO would return the favor should the Russians threaten Estonia’s sovereignty. 

What did the Estonians need to see and hear in order to increase support to the Coalition in Afghanistan? Based 

on their history, messaging that highlights domestic security successes as the result of shared intelligence by Coalition partners may have been one effective path. 

Examining these examples exposes the reality that maintaining a Coalition is an operation in and of itself 

and reveal the fact that such messaging needs to be incorporated into the Command’s Communications Strategy. 

Aside from Coalition Partner considerations, the local Afghan leaders may need to hear and see community projects that improve quality of life for Afghans and reinforce the leader’s legitimacy with their respective 

populace groups. 

To add to an already complex situation, the global reach of social media gives each target audience access to 

the messaging of the others. Thereby exposing any potential conflict in friendly force messaging. This is the reason 

message deconfliction at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war is so critical. 

Joint Doctrine Note 2-13, 

Commander’s Communication Synchronization, defines 

message as a narrowly focused 

communication directed at a 

specific audience to support a 

specific theme.

An Afghanistan national army doctor 

(left) volunteers his 

time to treat locals 

in the yet to be 

opened clinic. Military participation in 

humanitarian efforts 

builds populace 

confidence in the 

government. 

Photo by Staff Sgt. 

Jennifer Cohen 

(Defense Video and 

Imagery Distribution System)
APOJ 8

 APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

Step 7: Determine Supporting Actions and Collection requirements/methods

Nearly all effective messaging includes supporting actions that each target audience can observe. This includes both populace groups and threat organizations. Supporting actions are not solely associated with Information Operations Related Capabilities. For example, if our target audience was a threat group and our message was 

“Your Network is Disloyal,” the target audience may need to see increased successful kinetic operations in order to 

believe that message. Furthermore, supporting actions can be executed by friendly forces, threat forces, or third 

party organizations. Friendly forces will want to collect objective data on supporting actions. Later in the process, 

we will use this objective data to craft talking points for dissemination. 

Collection efforts with regard to supporting actions can support long term exploitation opportunities. 

For example, let’s say last year 70 village members died of Cholera that they contracted through contaminated 

drinking water. After a friendly force sponsored well project provides fresh water, we could go back after a determined period and find the new metric related to Cholera casualties. Let’s say the new metric was 7 village member 

deaths. This gives us a fresh piece of objective data to exploit. Using this technique, some supporting actions could 

be exploited well past their normal life expectancies. 

Step 8: Craft Talking Points

Talking points prove messages by including objective data that reinforces the supported message. Each 

message may have several supporting talking points. Talking Points are the portion 

of the Communications Strategy that is disseminated to each respective target 

audience. Planners obtain the objective data from reporting/collection methods 

associated with the supporting actions. Examples could include the number of inoculated villagers during a medical outreach event (friendly), the number of civilian 

casualties as the result of an IED attack (threat), or the number of villagers receiving medical care by a local government hosted NGO (3rd Party Organization). 

The development of talking points offers organizations the opportunity to provide up-to-date “Unit Communication Aids” that ensure all conduits engage target audiences with appropriate talking points. These conduits 

include patrols, leaders conducting KLEs, Civil Affairs engagements with local populace, etc. 

A seizure team from 

the USS Gettysburg and 

U.S. Coast Tactical Law 

Enforcement Team South 

Detachment 409 capture 

suspected pirates after 

responding to a merchant 

vessel distress signal. 

These actions deter threat 

groups, build populace 

confidence in counter-piracy operations, and 

justify U.S. actions to the 

international community.

Navy Photo by Petty Officer 

1st Class Eric Beauregard 

(Defense Video and Imagery 

Distribution System)

Army FM 3-61, Public Affairs 

Operations, describes Talking 

Points as “brief, concise statements of relevant fact that provide proof of messaging.”20
APOJ 9

 APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

Step 9: Identify and Task Delivery Methods

In addition to developing proper message content, it is important that planners determine the most effective methods to communicate with the target audiences. Target Audience Analysis (TAA) is one of the seven 

phases of the Joint Military Information Support Operations (MISO)process and helps planners determine 

effective message content and flow. TAA provides insights on how best to persuade the target audience to change 

its behavior to one more favorable to US interests. Several documents provide information on TAA including 

Joint Publication 3-13.2, Military Information Support Operations21 and Steve Tatham’s Strategic Studies Institute 

publication, “Using Target Audience Analusis to aid Strategic level Decisionmaking.”22 Planners coordinate the 

tasking of capabilities to disseminate the talking points based on these methods. Due to the comprehensive nature 

of the Communications Strategy, Public Affairs is included. However, full compliance with Public Affairs policy is 

crucial to maintain the capabilities credibility. 

Step 10: Determine Responsible Organizations:

Some capabilities and methods exist within different organizations or parts of organizations. For instance, 

tribal leaders can be engaged through KLEs conducted by unit senior leadership and/or Civil Affairs Detachments. Selecting organizations to perform certain actions prevents redundant efforts and reduces the chances 

of information fratricide. Planners should identify the different types of organizations that can deliver talking 

points and their respective target audiences. Furthermore, consider Joint, Inter-agency, Inter-governmental, and 

Multi-national organizations ( JIIM) that can contribute to the effort. 

Step 11: Capture Measures of Performance (MOP):

A MOP confirms or denies that a task has been properly performed. When planners find assessment indicator metrics falling below acceptable thresholds, reviewing MOP can help them determine if tasks are being executed correctly. One way 

to capture MOP is to look at all tasks with respect to:

Location: Is the location of the task the most effective for communicating with the target audience?

Frequency/Amount: Are we communicating often enough to be effective?

Language/Dialect: Are we using the correct language and dialect for the target audience?

Date/Time: Are we communicating at the most effective time of the day or night?

Method: Is this the most effective way to reach the target audience? Is it consistent with how they normally 

receive information?

Number of Target Audience Engaged: How many members of the target audience actually received our 

message? 

The Way Ahead: Developing an Effective Commander’s Narrative

Military doctrine is beginning to embrace the concept of a Commanders’ 

Mission Narrative that can focus efforts and synchronize messaging. The Commander’s Communication Synchronization Joint Doctrine Note 2-13 makes use of 

the term “mission narrative” once but fails to define it.24 Doctrine provides little 

guidance on the development of such narratives, the components of a well written 

one, or the overall suggested structure, etc. The mission narrative should facilitate the orchestration of the subordinate/supporting organization’s actions towards the desired end state. Therefore, there should be a clear standard 

for developing the Commander’s mission narrative and it should be included somewhere in the base order, or plan, 

of an operation. 

FM 6-0 defines Measures of 

Performance as the criteria used 

to assess friendly actions that are 

tied to measuring task accomplishment.

Joint Doctrine describes the narrative as the overarching expression of the context and desired 

results.23
APOJ 10

 APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

Commanders and their staffs can use the proposed Communication Strategy framework to build an 

effective mission narrative that captures the nature of friendly force activities and explains their application 

towards success (Figure 2). This, in turn, assists subordinates with planning engagements, increases the chances 

that communications with target audiences will be effective, and reduces the odds of contradicting friendly force 

messaging. The narrative describes the target audiences that are associated with each Desired Effect and uses an 

“ACT-PERCEIVE-OBSERVE” approach for each target audience. First, with respect to generating each Desired 

Effect: What do we want each target audience to do? Second, what does each target audience need to perceive to 

cause them to do the behavior? Third, what does each target audience need to observe to support each perception? It is important for planners to consider that not all of the required observations need be non-kinetic. For 

example, some target audiences may need to see successful kill/capture operations. 

Lastly, the narrative describes the friendly force actions that will provide the observables each target audience needs to see. Most of the information needed for the mission narrative can be collected from the Communications Strategy (Figures 3 and 4).

Commanders Narrative Construct (Figure 2)

The Assessment Plan and Communications Strategy 

One of the key benefits of the proposed Communications Strategy is that it puts organizations in the 

offense with regard to the Information Environment. For example, Commanders should not have to pull talking 

points from their staffs for engagements. Rather, staffs must identify and plan required engagements and talking 

points based on the developed Communications Strategy. 

On today’s modern battlefield, our success will depend on how fast we can make changes to our operations 

and activities. After all, war is a battle of TTPs. The most adaptive organization is likely to win.25 To this point, 

U.S. Forces need clearly understood assessment practices that help focus resources, messaging and applicable adjustments towards our objectives. 
APOJ 11

 APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

Threat Centric Example:

OBJ: Stabilize District One

DE1: Disrupted Insurgent operations and activities in District One (Weight: 65%)

DE1 MOE1: Level of Insurgent activities against District One Security Forces (Weight: 70%)

IND1: Number of IED attacks on security force patrols in District One (Weight: 80%)

DE1 Target Audience/Desired Behavior: District One Males with Sons/Report IED related activity 

and locations

DE1 Theme: Safety

DE1 Message: IEDs kill innocent Afghan children

DE1 Supporting Action: On 3 NOV Threat Forces detonated an IED on HWY1 

Supporting Collection: Seven children killed, including 4 boys under the age of 10. Annual IED related 

Afghan populace deaths currently are 483 and current wounded by IEDs is 2,697. 

Talking Point: On 3 NOV Taliban forces detonated an improvised explosive device along HWY 1, killing seven innocent Afghan children, including 4 boys under the age of 10. The Taliban continue to use 

emplacement techniques that endanger the populace. So far this year nearly 500 innocent Afghans have 

been killed by Taliban IEDs and over 2,600 have been injured. Don’t let your family become the next 

victims. Report Taliban activity and locations to your local security forces. Call 1-555-5555. 

Delivery Method: F2F by Patrols

Responsible Organization: 2nd BCT; 2 BN; C Co

Measures of Performance:

Location: Asala Village, District One

Frequency/Amount: Weekly 

Language/Dialect: Pashto/Wanetsi

Date/Time Group: 111345APR15-111530APR15

Method: Local Shura

Number of Target Audience Engaged: 37

(Figure 3)

ACT

PERCEIVE

OBSERVE
APOJ 12

 APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

Populace Centric Example:

OBJ: Stabilize District One

DE2: Increased District One populace confidence in local government (Weight: 35%)

DE2 MOE1: Level of populace support to the District One government (Weight: 30%)

DE2 IND1: Number of local populace participants in District One Shuras (Weight: 25%) 

DE2 Target Audience/Desired Behavior: District One Tribal Leaders/Influence populace to attend 

Shuras

DE2 Theme: Participative Governance

DE2 Message: District One government will respond to the needs of the people through Shuras

DE2 Supporting Action: District One government conducts well project for Village X 

Supported Collection: 2,500 members of Village X drink fresh water daily. Last year 300 villagers contracted Cholera through infected water. Only 3 new diagnosed since well project was completed. 

Talking Point: The District One Government has responded to the needs of Village X. On 23 May 15, 

through the village Shura, the government heard populace complaints of contaminated water. A well 

project was initiated on 3 JUN 15 and completed on 27 JUN 15. Since the well project was completed, 

only 3 people have contradicted cholera. By comparison, 300 died last year due to contaminated water. 

Delivery Method: KLE with District Leadership

Responsible Organization: CAT 121

Measures of Performance:

Location: District One government ministry HQ 

Frequency/Amount: Bi-Monthly

Language/Dialect: Pashto/Wanetsi

Date/Time Group: 141245APR15-1645APR15

Method: District Council Meeting

Number of Target Audience Engaged: 4

(Figure 4)

Michael J. Gurney is a retired infantry Senior Non-Commissioned Officer who served in Afghanistan and Iraq during 

his 24 year military career. He has nine years of experience as an Information Operations planner with the 1st Information Operations Command and deployed nine times to tactical and operational units throughout the world. He 

created and managed the 1st Information Operations Command Pre-Mission Training Program that prepares Information Operations Field Support Teams for deployments.

Notes

1. Army Doctrinal Reference Publication (ADRP) 3-0, Unified Land Operations (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government 

Printing Office [GPO], May 2012), 4-3.

2. ADRP 1-02, Terms and Military Symbols (Washington D.C.: U.S. GPO, 2015), 1-50.

ACT

PERCEIVE

OBSERVE
APOJ 13

 APOJ 16-13 

18 March 2016

FORT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS

T H E AR M Y PRES S

3. Andrew Garfield, “Understanding the Human Terrain: Key to Success in Afghanistan,” Small Wars Journal, July 16, 

2010, http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/understanding-the-human-terrain-key-to-success-in-afghanistan.

4. Stephen Downes-Martin, “Operations Assessment in Afghanistan is Broken: What is to be Done?,” Naval War 

College Review 64(4) (Autumn 2011):107-114, https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/ e8262311-4922-4b8c-b14c8714992130ba/Operations-Assessment-in-Afghanistan-Is-Broken.

5. General Raymond T. Odierno, General James F. Amos, and Admiral William H. McRaven, Strategic Landpower: Winning the Clash of Wills white paper (Army, Marine Corps, SOCOM Strategic Landpower Task Force, 6 May 2013), 4-7.

6. Martin, “Operations Assessment in Afghanistan is Broken.”

7. Major General Frederick S. Rudesheim, Commander’s Handbook for Assessment Planning and Execution (Suffolk,VA: 

Joint and Coalition Warfighting, 9 September 2011), II-11, III-13-III16.

8. Daniel Nasaw, “Mullen Blasts US Strategic Communication Efforts in Afghanistan,” The Guardian, August 28,2009, 

http://www.theGuardian.com/World/2009/aug/28/mullen.

9. Major General Stephen R. Layfield, The Commander’s Handbook for Strategic Communication and Communication 

Strategy (Suffolk, VA: U.S. Joint Forces Command, Joint Warfighting Center, 2010).

10. Steven R. Corman, “NATO Strategic Comm and Narrative in Afghanistan” (Arizona State University: Center for Strategic Communication, 2012), http://csc.asu.edu/2012/06/21/nato-strategic-comm-and-narrative-in-afghanistan.

11. Joint Publication ( JP) 3-0, Joint Operations (Washington D.C.: U.S. GPO, 11 August 2011), GL9.

12. JP 5-0, Joint Operation Planning Publication (Washington D.C.: U.S. GPO, 2011), GL13.

13. Major General Frederick S. Rudesheim, Planner’s Handbook for Operational Design (Suffolk, VA: Joint and Coalition 

Warfighting, 7 October 2011).

14. ADRP 5-0, The Operations Process (Washington D.C.: U.S. GPO, 2012).

15. JP 3-13, Information Operations (Washington D.C.: U.S. GPO, November 2014).

16. Field Manual (FM) 6-0, Commander and Staff Organization and Operations (Washington D.C.: U.S. GPO, May 

2014), Glossary-7. 

17. Ibid., Glossary-6.

18. Sean Rayment, “Why Britain’s Pledge to End Afghanistan’s Deadly Heroin Trade Has Failed,” The Telegraph online, 

May 20, 2012,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/

9276037/Why-Britains-Pledge-To-End-Afghanistans-Deadly-Heroin-Trade-Has-Failed.html.

19. BBC News Online, “Estonia Country Profile-Overview,” 2015, http://bbc.com/news/world-europe-17220810.

20. FM 3-61, Army Public Affairs Operations (Washington D.C.: U.S. GPO, 2014), 2-9.

21. JP 3-13.2, Military Information Support Operations (Washington D.C.:U.S. GPO, 2011), xiv, xv.

22. Steve Tatham, Using Target Audience Analysis to Aid Strategic Level Decisionmaking (Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. 

Army War College, 2015).

23. Joint Doctrine Note 2-13, Commander’s Communication Synchronization.

24. Ibid.

25. General Peter J. Schoomaker, Army Chief of Staff, Quote, ”This is a game of wits and will. You’ve got to be learning 

and adapting constantly to survive”, FM 3-24, Counterinsurgency Field Manual (Washington D.C.: GPO, 2006), Introduction.