According to DOD’s guidance, the immediate goal of stability operations often is to provide the local populace with security, restore essential services, and meet humanitarian needs. The long-term goal is to help develop indigenous capacity for securing essential services, a viable market economy, rule of law, democratic institutions, and a robust civil society. Stability operations include a continuum of activities that can occur throughout the spectrum of conflict ranging from preconflict stabilization to postconflict reconstruction and transition to effective governance. DOD has identified six major activities, or major mission elements, that U.S. military forces, civilian government agencies, and in many cases multinational partners may need to engage in to stabilize an environment and build sustainable host-nation capabilities. Figure 1 depicts these major mission elements. As Figure 1 illustrates, the mission elements, or dimensions, of stability operations range from establishing and maintaining a secure environment to delivering humanitarian assistance, economic support, and establishing effective forms of governance. As shown in the figure, DOD envisions one key element—strategic communications—as encompassing all of the other five mission elements. DOD guidance recognizes that many stability operations are best performed by indigenous, foreign, or U.S. civilian professionals and that DOD’s participation may be in a supporting role. However, this guidance also states U.S. military forces shall be prepared to perform all tasks necessary to establish or maintain order when civilians cannot do so. NSPD-44 outlines the major roles and responsibilities throughout the government for stability operations, including the responsibilities of the National Security Council, State, non-DOD agencies, and DOD. In November 2005, DOD issued DOD Directive 3000.05, which established the department’s overall policy and assigned responsibilities within DOD for planning, training, and preparing to conduct and support stability operations. Table 1 highlights several key responsibilities established by NSPD-44 and DOD Directive 3000.05. Within DOD, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is responsible for developing stability operations policy options for the Secretary of Defense and, according to DOD officials, provides oversight for the implementation of DOD’s stability operations policy. Under DOD Directive 3000.05, the Secretaries of the Military Departments and the Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, shall each develop stability operations capabilities. Commanders of the geographic combatant commands through the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall identify stability operations requirements within their areas of responsibility, shown in figure 2. Combatant commands are also directed to engage other organizations in stability operations planning, training, and exercises, in coordination with the Joint Staff and the Office of Policy. The department has recently announced that it plans to realign these areas of responsibility to establish a new geographic combatant command for the continent of Africa. As of February 2007, the details of this realignment had not been finalized. DOD has developed and continues to evolve an approach to enhance its stability operations capabilities, but it has encountered challenges in identifying capability gaps and developing measures of effectiveness, which are critical to successfully executing this approach. Among the many improvement efforts underway, the department has taken three key steps that frame this new approach. Specifically, the department has: (1) formalized a new stability operations policy that elevated stability operations to a core mission and gave them priority comparable to combat operations, and assigned numerous responsibilities to DOD organizations, (2) expanded DOD’s planning construct to more fully address stability operations, and (3) defined a new joint operating concept that will serve as a basis for how the military will support stabilization, security, transition, and reconstruction operations in the next 15 to 20 years. However, DOD has made limited progress in identifying and prioritizing needed capabilities, and in developing measures of effectiveness, which are critical steps required by DOD’s new directive and important tenets of performance-based management. Capability gaps are not being assessed because the department has yet to issue adequate guidance on how to conduct these assessments or set specific time frames to complete them. Similarly, the department has made limited progress in developing measures of effectiveness because current guidance does not clearly articulate a systematic approach on how to develop measures of effectiveness. Without a comprehensive assessment of stability operations capability gaps and clear measures of effectiveness, the department may not be appropriately prioritizing and developing the needed capabilities, or measuring its progress toward achieving these goals. In the past 18 months, DOD has taken positive steps to improve stability operations capabilities by establishing a new and comprehensive policy, planning guidance, and joint operating concept. First, in November 2005, DOD published DOD Directive 3000.05, which established DOD’s stability operations policy and assigned responsibilities within the department for planning, training, and preparing to conduct and support stability operations. This directive reflects a fundamental shift in DOD’s policy because it designates stability operations as a core mission that shall be given priority comparable to combat operations and emphasizes that integrated military and civilian efforts are key to successful stability operations efforts. According to DOD officials, this publication is intended to serve as a catalyst, pushing DOD to develop methods to enhance its own capabilities and integrate the capabilities and capacities of the defense, diplomatic, and development communities for achieving unity of effort in stability operations. The policy emphasizes that integrating civilian and military efforts is key to successful stability operations and recognizes that stability operations will not always be led by the military, and that DOD needs to be prepared to provide support to both government and nongovernment organizations when necessary. The directive assigns responsibility for approximately 115 tasks to 18 organizations in the department, such as the Under Secretaries for Policy and Intelligence, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commanders, and the Secretaries of the Military Departments. The directive states that stability operations skills, such as language capabilities and regional area expertise, be developed and incorporated into professional military education at all levels, and that information shall be shared with U.S. departments and agencies, foreign governments and forces, international organizations, Nongovernmental Organizations, and the members of the private sector supporting stability operations, consistent with legal requirements. The policy also states that military plans shall address stability operations throughout all phases of an operation or plan as appropriate, and that stability operations dimensions of military plans be exercised and tested, when appropriate, with other U.S. departments and agencies. In addition, the directive states that the Under Secretary for Policy shall submit a semiannual report developed in coordination with responsible DOD components to the Secretary of Defense evaluating the department’s progress in implementing the directive. A second step taken by DOD to improve stability operations was to broaden its military planning guidance for joint operations to include noncombat activities to stabilize countries or regions and prevent hostilities; and postcombat activities that emphasize stabilization, reconstruction, and transition governance to civil authorities. Figure 3 illustrates the change in DOD planning guidance. As shown in Figure 3, previous Joint Staff planning guidance considered four operational phases, including deter and engage the enemy, seize the initiative, conduct decisive operations, and transition to peaceful activities. The revised planning guidance now directs consideration of six phases of an operation, which include shaping efforts to stabilize regions so that conflicts do not develop, and expanding the dimensions of stability operations that are needed in more hostile environments after conflicts occur. This new planning guidance requires planners to consider the types of activities that can be conducted to help a nation establish a safe and secure environment, eliminating the need for armed conflict, and activities to assist a nation in establishing security forces and governing mechanisms to transition to self-rule. These are also the phases of an operation that will require significant unity of effort and close coordination between DOD and other federal agencies. In December 2006, DOD took a third step in outlining its approach to stability operations when the Joint Forces Command published the Military Support to Stabilization, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction Operations Joint Operating Concept. This operating concept describes how the future Joint Force Commander will provide military support to stabilization, security, transition, and reconstruction operations within a military campaign in pursuit of national strategic objectives in the 2014– 2026 time frame. The operating concept focuses on the full range of military support that the future Joint Force might provide in foreign countries across the continuum from peace to crisis and conflict in order to assist a state or region that is under severe stress or has collapsed due to either a natural or man-made disaster. This publication provides a conceptual framework for how future commanders can provide military support in foreign countries to a full range of stabilization, security, transition, and reconstruction operations, such as assist an existing or new host nation government in providing security, essential public services, economic development, and governance following the significant degradation or collapse of the government’s capabilities due to internal failure or as a consequence of the destruction and dislocation of a war; provide support to stabilize and administer occupied territory and care for refugees in major combat operations fought for limited objectives that fall short of forcibly changing the adversary regime; support a fragile national government that is faltering due to serious internal challenges, which include civil unrest, insurgency, terrorism and factional conflict; assist a stable government that has been struck by a devastating natural provide limited security cooperation assistance to a state that is facing modest internal challenges; and provide military assistance and training to partner nations that increase their capability and capacity to conduct stabilization, security, transition, and reconstruction operations at home or abroad. This publication is intended to complement both policy and planning guidance by expanding the understanding of stability operations and by providing leaders with a conceptual explanation of the strategic considerations, solutions, risks and mitigations, and implications to consider when planning a stability operation. In addition to establishing a new policy, revising planning guidance, and developing a new joint operating concept, DOD has taken other complementary actions to address stability operations capabilities within the department.