THE KAZAR FURY EXERCISE FOR TRAINING THE INITIAL BRIGADE COMBAT TEAMS.
Carl von Clausewitz, On War 
The U.S. Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca (USAIC&FH) designed the scenario for the Kazar Fury exercise to ensure intelligence personnel of the first Initial Brigade Combat Team (IBCT-1) could create the situational awareness required for maneuver plans and operations. Clausewitz's implied task, in which the intelligence officer strongly influences the decisions of a maneuver commander, was the cornerstone of the exercise. Creating a scenario to challenge intelligence personnel training for a small-scale contingency (SSC) is never easy. In this article, the scenario master offers an approach for use in a Constructivist training environment. The trainers thrust the IBCT personnel into an advanced scenario based on the Constructivist teaching philosophy--learning by doing.
The setting for the scenario was the fictitious country of Kazar, a "former" province in the Federal Republic of Slavia somewhere in Eastern Europe (see Figure 1). For centuries, ethnic diversity created the conditions for competition and conflict. With the dramatic changes in the early 1990s, economic competition and versions of democracy fueled ethnic policies that caused civil war. A few leaders from two ethnic lineages chose force of arms to achieve political and economic goals. Centuries-old ethnic laws took precedence over legislated laws. Western nations chose to intervene and stop the atrocities based on requests from one weaker ethnic group and with the approval of the United Nations (U.N.).
Developing The Scenario
A team of contractors, augmented with officers on casual status, expended approximately 20 workweeks creating the database and scripted "injects" to drive scenario activities. Separate, but equally important, was the creation of databases and files in the simulations to fit the scenario. Two contract companies expended approximately 20 additional work-weeks setting the Joint Conflict and Tactical Simulation (JOATS) system and the Tactical Simulation (TACSIM) system for the Kazar Fury exercise.
The Intelligence Center's training objectives guided the scripting process. The capstone objective was to design an exercise that set the desired conditions for intelligence to drive maneuver decisions.
Early in the scripting process, we decided to "morph" real-world intelligence products into our fictional scenario. While this decision reduced some of the workload, it moved the exercise into a real-world classified environment. Except for imagery products, we created all intelligence disciplines and media reports to provide the data and information from which the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Analysis Platoon and SR Integration Platoon developed intelligence to drive the brigade commander's decisions.
The friendly force selling included a combined joint task force (CJTF) comprising six ground maneuver elements (three U.S. brigades, one U.S. cavalry squadron, and two North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] brigades). A U.S. Army Forces (ARFOR) Command controlled the U.S. ground maneuver elements. The ARFOR commander was dual-hatted as the CJTF commander. The "White Cell" replicated U.S. theater and national elements, U.N. and NATO elements, adjacent units, the CJTF headquarters, and the ARFOR.
In addition to the order of battle on conventional forces, the scripting team created the "Gordian" and "Skandian" paramilitary forces, organized criminal gangs, and developed municipality overviews. Since the IBCT intelligence architecture is tactical human intelligence- (TAC HUMINT) heavy and the simulations do not provide HUMINT and counterintelligence (Cl) reporting, the scripters created a source-knowledge database. This database was used to create reporting from TAC HUMINT teams, allied HUMINT teams, theater assets, and national agency resources in the area of intelligence responsibility (AOIR).
We created a Secure Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) website for Kazar Fury to replicate the ARFOR, theater, and national sites that the ISR analysis and integration platoons could access. Additionally, controllers encouraged the ISR analysis and integration platoons to search real-world databases for static information, such as terrain data. With contractor assistance, the scripters crafted more than one hundred SALUTE (size, activity, location, unit, time, and equipment) reports that were transmitted to All-Source Analysis System (ASAS) Remote Workstations (RWSs) using the Distribution Simulation Environment (DSE).
Phases of the Exercise
The scenario contained several distinct phases (see Figure 2). They included--
* A preparation phase set at Fort Lewis, Washington, when the Army alerts the IBCT for deployment. The preparation phase lasted approximately three duty days and covered the game period D-14 to D-4.
* A deployment phase replicated movement from Fort Lewis to the intermediate staging base (ISB) and into the IBCT's area of operations (AO). It lasted approximately two days and covered D-3 to D+13.
* Dynamic game play initiated using the DSE and JCATS to drive TACSIM at the beginning of the Stability Operations Phase. This phase lasted seven days and covered D+14 to D+20.
The brigade S2 section, based on recommendations from the ISR integration platoon, arrayed their collection resources in the AOIR. The brigade executed collection based on priority intelligence requirements (PIR), collection emphasis messages, and daily taskings. The brigade Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)--acting as a surrogate for the Shadow 200 Tactical UAV--flew from the scenario's airport. The ground sensor platoon deployed as three separate teams: the Prophet Ground system, the GSRs (ground surveillance radars), and REMBASS II (Remotely Monitored Battlefield Sensor System II). The S2X divided the TAC HUMINT Platoon into three elements. The 1st and 3d Battalion Task Forces each received an operational management team (OMT) with two TAC HUMINT teams in direct support (DS). The remaining TAC HUMINT teams all collocated with the brigade; three were in general support while one was designated "GS reinforcing."
During the preparation phase, information went to the brigade S2 and the ISR integration and ISR analysis platoons via the Kazar Fury website. As the exercise moved from Fort Lewis through the ISB into Kazar, the brigade S2, ISR integration platoon, and the ISR analysis platoon received information from the Kazar Fury website and the HUMINT and Cl scripting cell, which included reports from the TAC HUMINT platoon. Upon initiation of the simulation (D+14), information went to the brigade S2 and the ISR integration and SR analysis platoons from TACSIM driven by JCATS, DSE, the Kazar Fury website, and reports from the HUMINT and CI scripters. JCATS transmitted IBCT Blue situation reports and "Blue" SALUTE reports. DSE transmitted pre-scripted SALUTE reports. TACSIM created and transmitted reports from all the "technical" sensors in the battle-space; e.g., Prophet, UAVs, Advanced QUICKEIX, and TRQ-32 TEAMMATE.
We provided theater and national signals intelligence (SIGINT) products to the students via the Kazar Fury website. The HUMINT and CI scripters included soldiers from the TAC HUMINT platoon. Based on the PIR, Specific Order or Request (SOR), and other guidance from the S2X, the TAC HUMINT platoon replicated meetings with human contacts. The TAO HUMINT platoon transmitted reports to the S2X via the SIPRNET using the CI/HUMINT Automation Tool Set (CHATS). Allied, theater, and national HUMINT and CI elements in the AOIR provided reports to the S2X, either in hard copy or via the SIPRNET. Additionally, the White Cell provided a daily intelligence summary (INTSUM) beginning at D+14, and scripted responses to IBCT requests for information (RFIs).
Next Time 
Based on the lessons learned and participant feedback, the design of the Capstone Exercise for the second IBCT (IBCT-2) will help the exercise certify that the surveillance troop, Ml company, and TAC HUMINT soldiers "embedded" in the RSTA squadron are crucial components in IBCT-2.  The objective of the IBCT Capstone Exercise is to conduct limited mission rehearsal and to refine tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) and training in the brigade combat teams (BCTs) for Ml battlefield operating system (BOS) collective tasks and competencies in a near-realistic environment. The ultimate goal is to assure that the Intelligence BOS really influences leaders to make the correct decisions related to battle planning and baffle execution.
The training objectives for the IBCT-2 Capstone Exercise are as follows.
* S2s assure that intelligence affects battle planning, decision-making, and battle execution.
* Brigade rehearses mission planning and feedback between S2s, the MI company, and the RSTA squadron's Surveillance Troop.
* ISR integration platoon rehearses the planning, technical control, and steerage for all collection assets in the AOIR.
* Surveillance troop plans, executes, and reports the results of collection missions.
* Surveillance troop rehearses TTP for interaction between the RSTA S2 and the Ml company.
* RSTA squadron HUMINT soldiers, HUMINT teams, and OMTs plan, execute, and report the results of collection missions.
* OMTs rehearse the TTP for interaction with the 52X.
* ISR analysis platoon develops its ability to influence decisions.
Additional goals for the IBCT-2 exercise include--
* Identify TTP issues related to the development of intelligence products.
* Rehearse integration of single-source analysis into all-source products.
* Develop the briefing skills of leaders and junior soldiers.
* Identify UP issues for the dynamic retasking of collection assets.
* Identify TTP issues related to split-based operations and intelligence support while the BCT is in transit.
* Identify TTP issues related to movement of the Intelligence BOS assets from the home station to the area of responsibility (AOR).
Based on IBCT-1 lessons learned during the Kazar Fury and Buffalo Soldier Challenge  exercises, Figure 3 is a recommended schedule for IBCT-2's Capstone Exercise. This figure shows the combination of the Kazar Fury and Buffalo Soldier Challenge exercises into one capstone exercise using the same scenario. The philosophy is to build up to this exercise throughout cadre and cohort training. An essential aspect is the development of three or four viable scenarios used during both cadre and cohort training. Throughout the cycle, soldiers and leaders learn about the area, likely adversaries, and potential courses of action for each scenario. Participants begin the capstone exercise with knowledge of a building crisis in a specific region. Information provided on Game Days 1 and 2 (Phase I) will focus the BCT intelligence architecture on specific events, and provide additional background information. The MI BOS moves through a military decision-making process (MDMP) on Game Days 3 through 5 (Phase I). We will ex ecute Phase I predominantly in Rowe Hall at Fort Huachuca.
Beginning on Day 6 (Phase II), the surveillance troop and a major portion of the MI company execute an FTX to replicate ground movement from the ISB into the IBCT's AOR. Except for the UAV, elements will physically move and remain overnight in field conditions, e.g., driving around the Huachuca Mountains. During this movement, the MI BOS will provide intelligence to the BCT and battalion commanders regarding movement and the situation in the AOR. (An aggressor force, HUMINT contacts, SIGINT targets, and UAV targets are required.) The brigade S2, RSTA squadron S2, battalion S2, and a portion of the MI company remain at Rowe Hall during Phase II. JCATS, TACSIM, and DSE can support Phase II. On Game Day 12, the exercise begins stability operations in the AOR. We will initiate dynamic game play using the DSE, with the JCATS driving TACSIM. This phase will last seven days and cover the period from D+14 to D+20.
On Game Day 19, we will conduct an after-action review (AAR) that covers the previous two weeks and sets the conditions for success in the Senior Leaders Course. Phase 4 prepares the Intelligence BOS for execution of the digitized vignettes used in Phase V for the IBCT senior leader training.
Two appropriate Army sayings come to mind that are applicable to Kazar Fury: "The first report is never right" and "No plan survives first contact." We are looking beyond the first reports to determine what we must do to improve the exercise. The plans we created in April and May 2000 did not survive "first contact" in July and August. However, we are now moving forward to create a future iteration that will challenge the Intelligence BOS to influence battle planning and battle execution.
(1.) Clausewitz, Carl von, On War, translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), Chapter Six, Book One.
(2.) See the glossary on page 64 for expan-sion of the acronyms used in the figures.
(3.) Lessons Learned from the intelligence BOS cadre and cohort training for IBCT-1 are under review. There are no final decisions regarding cadre and cohort training for IBCT-2. This section offers the author's view of the training IBCT-2 could execute next time.
(4.) The Kazar Fury AAR is at http://www.intel.army.mil/kazarfury/.
(5.) Buffalo Soldier Challenge was an FTX executed by the MI company and the RSTA squadron's surveillance troop immediately following Kazar Fury. The leaders suggested that Buffalo Soldier Challenge precede Kazar Fury next time.
Colonel Jerry Jones retired from the Army on 30 May 2000. He began his career as an Armor officer with the 1st Armored Division (1 AD) at Fort Hood, Texas. After Vietnam, he participated in three REFORGERs with the "Big Red One," and served with the 32d U.S. Army Air Defense Command, 1 AD, in Germany; special mission units in the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM); U.S. Central Command J5 in Operations DESERT SHIELD/STORM; and the Allied MI Battalion in Bosnia. COL Jones finished his Army career at Fort Huachuca as Commander, INSCOM Training and Doctrine Support (ITRADS) Detachment. He was a 35F (HUMINT Officer) with significant 35E (Counterintelligence Officer) experience. He was also a strategist (designation 6Z) and he served at echelons from tactical to national. He currently serves as a contractor with the USAIC&FH. Readers can contact COL Jones via E-mail at email@example.com and telephonically at (520) 533-6237 and DSN 821-6237.
Phase I (Predeployment: D-14 to 0-4)
3d BCT, 21D conducts planning and preparation for movement to Kazar. (This phase is executed without the simulation.)
Phase II (Early Entry Operations) D-3 to 0+13
3d BCT, 210 lands at three airfields, moves north, and secures the Kacanik Corridor in order to establish presence and facilitate passage of follow-on forces. Upon completing handoff of Kacanik Corridor control to 1st Bde, 1st ID, the 3d BCT main body moves north to secure lines of communication for 2d Bde, 1st ID, and 1/4 CAV, 1st ID, movement to their areas of operation. Upon completion of movement by 2d Bde and 114 CAV, 3d BCT occupies designated area of operations. (This phase is executed without the simulation.)
Phase III (Stability Operations) D+14 to D+20
3d BCT, 210, conducts operations to create a safe and secure environment, which enables economic and political institutions to establish a democratic infrastructure. 3d BCT conducts operations to detect, identify, and neutralize the Skandian and Gordian paramilitary organizations, and transnational elements with objectives contradictory to U.N. objectives, deter conventional threats, and, if necessary, defeat a conventional attack.
Phase IV (Transfer of Authority to Coalition Peacekeeping Forces) -- TBD Phase V (Redeployment) -- TBD
Figure 2. Concept of Maneuver for the 3d BCT, 2d Infantry Division (IBCT-1).
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Jones, Jerry W.|
|Publication:||Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin|
|Date:||Oct 1, 2000|
|Previous Article:||Transition Training -- IBCT-1 Cadre and Cohort.|
|Next Article:||Doctrine for the Initial Brigade Combat Team.|