Strategic Resource Optimization Methdoology For Developing Countries

By
John V. Farr and Kenneth W. McDonald1

Abstract
In order to responsibly prioritize and allocate aid in developing countries, we need methods, processes,
and quantitative analytical techniques to determine where and when to invest scarce resources. The
methodology presented herein is useful in enhancing decision making for allocation of resources and
solidifying support for a particular portfolio of projects for investments in developing countries and other
nations of strategic interest to the US government. This paper demonstrates the utility of multiobjective
scoring decision-making in resource prioritization mainly for developing countries. Specifically, the
techniques presented are a generalization of an actual project developed for Afghanistan. Multiobjective
scoring not only helps quantify the decision but provides structure to the decision making process along
with transparency. The methodology also has utility for defense support to civilian authorities for
emergency management programs/disasters.

Key Words: resource allocation, multiobjective decision making, value focused thinking
Introduction
In order to responsibly prioritize and allocate aid in developing countries and in the aftermath of a
natural disaster, we need methods, processes, and quantitative analytical techniques to determine where
and when to invest scarce resources. The military as an agent of the nation will continue to grapple with
the burden of nation reconstruction (NR) and capacity development (CD) for the foreseeable future. For
our purposes we define NR as the planning, preparation, execution, and assessment of efforts to construct
infrastructure, policy, and governance following a conflict or national hazard. Whereas, capacity building
or development refers to assistance that is provided to entities, usually societies in developing countries,
which have a need to develop a certain skill or competence, or for general upgrading of performance
ability.
The military in support of civilian agencies has performed this role throughout history--ensuring the
safety and security of the local populace, assisting with reconstruction, and providing basic sustenance
and public services. While this function is not new, its importance has increased dramatically within the
past decade as prolonged conflicts continue to challenge to both civilian and military leaders. The
military also has the resources, command and control structure, and expertise to support post natural
disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.
Multiobjective decision analysis (MODA) is useful for structuring the judgments used in assessing the
value of projects that comprise a project/program portfolio in an organization with multiple and
conflicting objectives (see Keeney and Raiffa, 1976). Multiobjective decision analysis methods are based
upon structured objectives, evaluation measures, value functions, and have utility when decision makers
are faced with making decisions when multiple, and perhaps conflicting objectives are present.

Director and Associate Director, respectively, Center for Nation Reconstruction and Capacity Development, United
States Military Academy, West Point, New York, 10996
1

Page 1

Given the greater demand by the United States (US) in an era of shrinking resources, the US Government
and it agents, must be more efficient and accountable in planning and executing its projects and
programs in support of NR, CD, and post natural disaster requirements. The methods, processes and
tools (MPTs) presented helps establish priorities for US assistance programs but can obviously be
extended to members of the international community and non government organizations (NGOs). Our
MPTs in the stability and reconstruction (S&R) arena must be agile and support evolving and often
conflicting objectives and a diverse set of stakeholders.

Literature Review
Capacity Development MPTs
The World Bank (Otoo, et al, 2009) has long sponsored projects with the goal of CD in underdeveloped
countries. An assessment of projects in the 1990s highlighted that often investments in financial and
other resources failed to achieve the result of increased capacity development.
A review of projects and their outcomes lead to the publication of a results oriented decision-making
model. This model provides a systemic process by which decision makers can assess the appropriateness
of a given project given the host nation capacity for that particular change and is shown in Figure 1. The
World Bank is a structured methodology and does not present any specific analytical techniques for
resource optimization and prioritization.

Figure 1. World Bank model for assessment methodology (from Otoo et al, 2009)
The United Nations (UN) has a long history of CD programs in underdeveloped countries. After a
review of previous successful and unsuccessful development programs, the UN established internal
guidelines (United Nations, 1998) in the early assessment of what programs would be implemented
successfully and has sustainability after the initial investment of resources.
Numerous other frameworks/methodologies exist in the literature (see Center for Strategic and
International Studies and the Association of the United States Army or CSIS AUSA, 2002). For example
Page 2

the CSIS framework is organized into three conceptual phases, defined as initial response, transformation,
and fostering sustainability. The framework tasks are organized around four distinct issue areas, or
pillars: security; justice/reconciliation; social/economic well being; and governance/participation.
Within each of these tasks are objectives and tasks that are quantifiable during the three conceptual
phases.
Carroll et al, (2008) presents a MODA model as a systematic approach to resource allocation in postconflict reconstruction operations in two distinct environments: adversarial and non-adversarial. The
model is intended to aid decision-makers in prioritizing, planning, and allocating resources for postconflict reconstruction efforts. The utility of this model lies in its ability to be use the proposed
methodology effectively in any post-conflict environment to provide quantitative results and a structured
decision making approach based upon surveys of subject matter experts (SMEs). While the evaluation
measures or metrics may change in each environment, the core outcomes and the central tasks that
support those outcomes hold regardless of the type of post-conflict environment. These core outcomes of
security, governance, rule of law, economics, and social well being, if achieved, constitute success in postconflict reconstruction operations. Carroll et al, (2008) developed functional hierarchies for a conflict and
a non conflict environment. Figure 2 contain the function hierarchy and associated weights for a conflict
environment. What is missing from that work is that only a subjective scoring methodology was used to
quantify the value in lieu of quantifiable metrics.
At the strategic level, the Rand paper (see Bensahel et al, 2010) goes into depth on the political
interactions, but the focus on this is using the different approaches as a guideline in assessing projects at
the local and regional levels. At the local level, this model can be applied in a similar to the value
hierarchy model proposed by Carroll et al, (2008).
The United State Military Academy or West Point developed a life cycle model for NR and CD and is
shown in Figure 3 (Farr et al, 2011b). The process shown in this figure is a typical systems engineering
development model. Often called the Vee or V model it is used as systems development model designed
to simplify the understanding of the complexity associated with developing systems such as the
processes associated with defining the need and implementing a solution for NR and CD. We adapted
the V representation for our problem because the NR and CD investment problems are complex systems
requiring stakeholder analysis, development of alternatives, analysis of alternatives, implementation and
assessment. Our V model allows a structured process for developing solutions to the resource allocation
problems. Again this is a process and does not convey how to actually prioritize the resource investment.

Page 3

Figure 2. Weights for generalized reconstruction model (from Caroll et al, 2008)
4

Figure 3. Systems model for strategic resource allocation methodology (from Farr et all, 2011b)

The life cycle model shown in Figure 3 utilizes five phases which include establish context, problem
definition and needs assessment, solution design, decision making, and implementation and monitoring.
In this process they describe decision making as Once objectives and quantifiable outcomes are
established and ranked that align national strategic interests, alternative actions must be developed and
evaluated against all the objectives. The portfolio of alternatives that is able to achieve the maximum
value is further for more possible primary and secondary consequences. Once an action plan is
developed and initiated, the decisions must be continually evaluated to mitigate any adverse
consequences from becoming problems.
The process shown in Figure 3 requires objectives and quantifiable outcomes that are aligned with
national strategic interests (i.e., well defined stakeholder requirements). The resulting portfolio of
alternatives to achieve the maximum must be developed and the primary and secondary consequences
understood. Once an action plan is developed and initiated, the decisions must be continually evaluated
to mitigate any adverse consequences from becoming problems.
From Figure 3, the detailed steps in the decision making process include,
Validate The Overall Development Goals At every step in this process we must ensure that the
development goals are being addressed. After the solution design phase and we have an
understanding of the CONOPS and the portfolio level solutions we must revisit the development
goals. We must first ensure that from the knowledge gained from the solution design that there
is alignment between the products and the needs. We must then ensure that these are the right
needs.
Identify And Quantify Specific Projects That Can Close The Gaps From our intermediate level
Concept of Operations (CONOPS), family of projects, and validated development goals we can
start to develop viable candidates and match them against our needs. We must be able to
quantify and measure their value against the gaps in current conditions that the end state needed
to meet our overall strategic level goals.
Rank Development Priorities And Align With Projects The final step before developing the project
portfolio is to rank priorities. We must be able to understand the synergies between projects. We
must also be able to develop a time-phased approach to implementing projects.
Optimize/Prioritize Projects In The Portfolio Once our priorities are developed we can now
optimize our portfolios with projects based upon sustainability, cost, and closing the gaps in
current and desired capabilities.
Design Projects In The Portfolio Detailed designs are now needed to finalize budgets. In many
instances the capacity of a nation to construct infrastructure, implement governance, etc., is
limited by the industrial base and host nation capacity. These issues should be part of the
solution design phase however the ultimate implications should be addressed during this phase.
Evaluate The Outcomes Of Projects In The Portfolio Though explicitly stated here, the process of
comparing the projects/portfolios versus the strategic goals must be continuous. This will
prevent wasted investments. Measurable outcomes and continuous assessment are critical to any
development project.

Evaluate The Outcomes Of The Portfolio - In most large-scale projects, funding is allocated at the
portfolio so we must assess as this level. Also, most strategic level goals can only be measured
based upon the results of a portfolio of projects.

Specifically the research presented herein was designed to support the decision making phase of the West
Point process. Figure 4 shows the process for optimizing/prioritizing the projects in the portfolio.

Optimize/
Prioritize The
Project In the
Portfolio

Validate and
Trade Gaps and
Requirements

Candidate
Projects

Iterate

Cost
Projects/
Portfolio

Iterate
Candidate
Projects

Tradeoff
Analysis

Figure 4. Optimizing projects in the portfolio

Optimization and Prioritization Scheme for Project Portfolio Management
The techniques primary use is MODA, which ranks alternatives to assist in selection of the preferred
alternative. Specifically, it is useful in enhancing decision making for allocation of resources and
solidifying support at the portfolio level.
It is important to first identify what is meant by the term portfolio. A portfolio or mix of post-conflict
reconstruction projects may be viewed at two levels. At the upper level, there exists an overall portfolio
of projects for the post-conflict country that is comprised of the lower level of individual agency
portfolios of projects. This lower level is the mix of projects from each of the stakeholders involved in the
post-conflict reconstruction effort.
The technique begins with the post-conflict reconstruction value hierarchy that was developed as
previously discussed. The five core outcomes are broken down into central tasks, and the central tasks
identified can be further broken down into evaluation criteria in the value hierarchy model. The
evaluation criteria presented here are representative critical tasks that may be performed during
reconstruction operations. Their scope is not meant to be specific, as the execution of each task is
situationally dependent.
As the evaluation criteria are dependent upon the situation and type environment, they are not presently
assigned local weights in the value hierarchy model. It is not predetermined which, if any, of these
evaluation criteria will be a factor so they cannot be assigned constant local weights in the model.
Appropriate evaluation criteria and local weights will need to be determined, based on current
information, when applying the model.
A swing weight matrix (see Parnell and Trainor, 2009) is used to assign weights based upon the
importance of the value measure to the decision makers and stakeholders and the range of the value
measure. This concept is shown in Table 1. Note that value measures are typically placed in the right cell
depending upon their importance and variation. Variation is difficult to ascertain because we routinely
7

make intuitive judgments about importance without the impact of the actual variation of the value
measure range for the decision under consideration. The definition of importance and variation will be
different for each decision and requires hard thinking. The task is similar to defining two constructed
scales. Variation may be easier to discuss as the impact of the value measure range on the decision.
Once the levels of importance and variation are defined, all the measures are placed in the cells. In some
instances we can assign weights at different levels in value hierarchy. Ideally this should be at the value
level below the objectives. One measure is assigned an arbitrary unnormalized weight (e.g., 100). The
highest or lowest weighted cells are the best place to start. Any swing weight technique can be used, e.g.
balance beam or value increment to assess the remaining weights. Global swing weights are obtained by
normalizing the weights as shown in Equation 1.

wi =

fi
n

(1)

fi
i =1

Where

= un-normalized matrix swing weight corresponding to value measure i.

Table 1. Elements of a swing weight matrix

Importance of the value measure to the

decision

Range of
variation of the
value measures

High*

Medium

Low

High

B2

C3

Medium

B1

C2

D2

Low

C1

D1

Weights in the following cells need to follow these relationships (Parnell et al, 2008):
A > all other cells
B1 > C1, C2, D1, D2, E
B2 > C2, C3, D1, D2, E
C1 > D1, E
C2 > D1, D2, E
C3 > D2, E
D1 > E
D2 > E
Multiple measures can be placed in the same cell with same or different weights.

Again, the value hierarchy above does not depict constant local weights for the sample evaluation
measures because these measures may not always be appropriate for the situation and type of
environment. In addition, some information may not be made available or does not currently exist, so
this must also be taken into account when determining appropriate measures. Appropriate evaluation
measures and local weights will need to be determined, based on current information, when using the
model.
Multi-objective decision analysis (Kirkwood, 1997) uses an overall value function which combines the
multiple evaluation measures into a single measure of the overall value of each evaluation alternative, or
portfolio of projects. Thus, different mixes of projects in a portfolio may be compared to determine the
appropriate mix for maximizing value. Multi-objective decision analysis is useful for structuring the
judgments used in assessing the value of projects that comprise a reconstruction portfolio in an
organization with multiple and conflicting objectives. Multi-objective value analysis methods are based
upon structured objectives, evaluation measures, value functions, and weights.
The overall value function has the form
N

Portfolio Score =

w V(x
g

(2)

n =1

where N = the number of projects in the portfolio, g = the evaluation measure local weight, and V ( x n ) =
the value or score assigned to project x for each evaluation measure. In this function, it is assumed that
individual projects impact
only one evaluation measure.
When g has been determined for the current situation, the model can be used to find the right mix of
projects to maximize value or support a combination of core outcomes within a fixed budget portfolio.
This is where the model can show how to maximize overall value. Simply, the mix of projects with the
highest overall score adds the most value. We can then view projects as a function of cost or some other
variable to make logical and defensible decisions.
When using multi-objective value analysis a structured approach must be taken to develop the weights,
objectives and functions. In this paper we presented objectives and functions based upon the experience
of the authors, a literature review, and input from some subject matter experts. We then surveyed a
group with experience in reconstruction to develop the weights. This provides a realistic model to
demonstrate the utility of this approach. This top down approach provides a starting point for allocating
resources. Ideally, stakeholders should be involved at all levels. A structured decision process involving
funding agencies and local governments should be used to develop objectives and functions. One such
methodology is Value Focused Thinking (Keeney, 1992). Note that function should always be
quantifiable and measurable. Once these objectives have been developed, the task of assigning weights
can begin. Again, some type of structured decision methodology should be used with stakeholders at all
levels providing input. In general, there is often very little disagreement on the objectives, functions, and
how to quantify the functions. However, when assigning the weights are when stakeholder interests are
reflected. For example, one group of stakeholders might place a high value upon security. Whereas
another group of stakeholders such as the local populous would place a higher weight on meeting basic
needs. Stakeholder buy in is critical with all parties agreeing to the framework. Sensitivity analysis can
play a key role here to show how varying the weights over different ranges can have little or major
impact on the objective function.
General Value Model for Resource Allocation, Assessment, and Prioritization
This model was based upon an extensive literature review and a workshop conducted at West Point in
January 2011 with officers that had extensive resource allocation experience. Unfortunately, DoS, USAID,
and the affected NGOs were not represented.

The high-level function hierarchy is shown in Figure 5. Note the fundamental objective for any NR/CD
project is to promote democracy and a self-sustainable nation.

Figure 5. High-level functional hierarchy for the NR/CD prioritization model

Figure 6 shown the objectives that align with the functions shown in Figure 5. The swing weight matrix
(i.e., the relative importance of each objective) is shown in Table 2 for the functions shown in Figure 6.
These swing weights are translated to global weights used for our scoring methodology using Table 3.

10

Figure 6. Functions for the NR/CD prioritization model

11

Table 2. Swing weight matrix for the NR and CD prioritization model

Importance of the Value Measure to the Decision Makers and Stakeholders

High

High

Variation in
Measure
Ranges

Improve the Nations Security Forces

Conduct Fair Elections
Improve the Publics Perception
Increase Host Nation Capacity
Foster Private Sector Development
Provide Sustainable Infrastructure
Promote Education

Improve and Align the Host Nation

and International Security Forces
Command and Control
Improve and Align the Government
and Military Command and Control
Promote Gender, Racial, Religious,
and Ethnic Equality
Provide Effective Public
Administration
Provide Heath Services

Medium

Low

Medium

Low

Support the Host

Nation and
International Goals
Facilitate
Reintegration and
Reconciliation
Improve the Justice
System

Reduce Illicit
Business Activities

Support the Mission

of the International
Security Force

Promote Local
Military
Organizations

Demine and Dispose

of UXOs
Address Refugee
Issues

Increase Agricultural Productivity

and Sustainability
Improve Banking

12

Table 3. Swing weight values

Importance of the Value Measure to the

Decision Makers and Stakeholders

High

Variation
in
Measure
Ranges

Medium
70

High

100

Medium

80

50

Low

60

30

Low
40

20
10

This general methodology was used to develop short term, mid term, and long-term project portfolios in
Afghanistan. Plots of value versus costs, comparison of value, etc., were all developed in effort to better
allocate investments in Afghanistan.

Summary
In this paper we have presented a methodology to prioritize projects and assess their value. Much of our
research was also focused on Optimize/Prioritize Projects In The Portfolio step in the Decision Making
phase of the West Point life cycle model for NR and CD project.
The swing weights and associated models contained herein are for the general representation. Variations
of the model were developed for use in Afghanistan.
With enactment of the FY2011 budget, Congress has approved a total of $1.418 trillion for military
operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans health care for the
three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks (Belasco, 2011). The Department of Defenses share of
this amount is $1.326 trillion. The Department of States budget for mainly NR and CD activities exceeds
$77B. Other agencies (Departments of Agriculture, Justice, Homeland Defense, etc) also have allocated
significant funding in the war on terror. Transparent, defensible, and sound techniques are needed to
best allocate these resources.

13

References
Afghanistan Kabul Conference Communiqu, A Renewed Commitment by the Afghan Government to the
Afghan People A Renewed Commitment by the International Community to Afghanistan, accessed December 7,
2010 at http://www.mfa.gov.af/FINAL%20Kabul%20Conference%20%20%20Communique.pdf, July 20,
2010
Belasco, Amy, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11,
Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget, Congressional Research Service
7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33110, March 29, 2011
Bensahel, Nora, Oliker, Olga, and Peterson, Heather Improving Capacity for Stabilization and
Reconstruction Operations, The Rand Corporation, 2009
Bensahel, Nora, Olga Oliker, and Heather Peterson, Improving Capacity for Stabilization and Reconstruction
Operations, Santa Monica: Rand 2009
Boak, Josh, U.S.-funded infrastructure deteriorates once under Afghan control, report says, Washington
Post Article, January 4, 2011
Binnendijk, Hans, and Stuart E. Johnson, eds., Transforming For Stabilization and Reconstruction
Operations, Washington D.C.: Center For Technology and National Security Policy by Defense UP, 2004
Carroll, Lora M., Farr, John V., and Trainor, Timothy, Weighted Scoring Model for Resource Allocation in
Post-Conflict Reconstruction. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Volume 14, No. 3, pp 169-177, September, 2008
Center for Army Lessons Learned, Handbook 09-27, Commanders Guide Money As a Weapon
System, accessed December 7, 2010 at http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/call/docs/09-27/09-27.pdf, April
2009
Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Association of the United States Army, PostConflict Reconstruction: Task Framework, May 1, 2002
Cohen, Craig, Special Report: Measuring Progress in Stabilization and Reconstruction, US Institute of Peace
accessed December 7, 2010 at http://www.usip.org/files/resources/srs1.pdf, Stability and
Reconstruction Series, March, 2006
COMISAF/CDR USFOR-A, Counterinsurgency (COIN) Guidance, August 1, 2010
COMISAF/CDR USFOR-A, Counterinsurgency (COIN) Contracting Guidance, September 8, 2010
Defense Science Board, Defense Science Board 2004 Summer Study on transition to and from hostilities,
Washington, D.C., Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,
2004
Department of the Army, FM3-07: Stability Operations, accessed
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/repository/FM307/FM3-07.pdf, 2008

December

6,

2010,

at

Department of State, Post Conflict Reconstruction Essential Tasks, accessed December 6, 2010 at
http://www.crs.state.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=public.display&shortcut=J7R3, April 2005
Department of State, Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy, accessed December 7,
2010 at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/135728.pdf, February, 2010

14

Department of State, Foreign Assistance Standardized Program Structure and Definitions, accessed
December 7, 2010 at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/141836.pdf, April 8, 2010
Dobbins, James, America's Role in Nation-building: from Germany to Iraq, Issue 1753, Santa Monica:
RAND, 2003
DoDI,
Stability
Operations,
No.
3000.05,
3
accessed
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/300005p.pdf, 2009

December

6,

2010,

Ghani, Ashraf, Clare Lockhart, and Michael Carnahan, Closing the Sovereignty Gap: an Approach to StateBuilding, London: Overseas Development Institute, 2005
Farr, John V., Sawer, Brian, and McDonald, Kenneth W., Strategic Resource Identification and
Prioritization Methodology for Nation Reconstruction, 32th Annual American Society of Engineering
Management Conference, Texas Tech University Lubbock, Texas, October 19-22, 2011a
Farr, John V., Sawer, Brian, McDonald, Kenneth W., and Hoskins, Jamie, Afghanistan Sustainable
Infrastructure Plan: Strategic Resource Investment Methodology For Developing Countries, Center for
Nation Reconstruction and Capacity Development, United States Military Academy, West Point, New
York, Report 2011-3, DTIC: ADB372073, August, 2011b.
Government Accountability Office, Rebuilding Iraq, Report GAO-05-876, accessed December 7, 2010 at
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05876.pdf, July 2005
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), Campaign Plan 38302, Revision 5
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Afghanistan National Development Strategy, Accessed December 10,
2010,
at
http://www.embassyofafghanistan.org/documents/Afghanistan_National_Development_Strategy_eng.
pdf, 2008
Joint Operations Concept, Military Support to Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction, 2006
Kabul International Conference on Afghanistan, Afghanistan National Implementation Strategy and
Prioritization Implementation Plan, Mid 2010-Mid 2013, accessed December 7, 2010 at
http://www.mfa.gov.af/kcs/ANDS%20PIP%20Vol%201%20-%20English.pdf, Volume I, July 20, 2010
Keeney, Ralph L., Value Focused Thinking, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1992
Kirkwood, C., Strategic Decision Making: Multiobjective Decision Analysis with Spreadsheets, Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1997
Levine, D., Berenson, M., and Stephan, D. Statistics for Managers: Using Microsoft Excel, Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1999
Open Society Institute (OSI) and United Nations Foundation (UNF), Capstone Concept for Joint Operations,
Reconstructing Iraq: A Guide to the Issues. 2003
Orr, R., Winning the Peace: An American Strategy for Post-conflict Reconstruction, CSIS Significant Issues, No.
26, Washington, D.C., 2004

15

Otoo, Samuel, Natalia Agapitova and Joy Behrens. The Capacity Development Results Framework,
accessed
December
7,
2010
at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTCDRC/Resources/CDRF_Paper.pdf?resourceurlname=CDRF_
Paper.pdf, World Bank, June, 2009
Keeney, Ralph L., and Raiffa, Howard (1976), Decisions With Multiple Objectives; Preferences and Value
Tradeoffs, Cambridge University Press.
Kirkwood, Craig W. (1997), Strategic Decision Making: Multiobjective Decision Analysis with
Spreadsheets, Duxburg Press, Wadsworth Publishing Company
Parnell, Gregory S., Driscoll, Patrick J., and Henderson Dale L., Editors, Decision Making for Systems
Engineering and Management, Wiley Series in Systems Engineering, Andrew P. Sage, Editor, Wiley &
Sons Inc., 2008
Parnell, Gregory and Trainor, Timothy, Using the Swing Weight Matrix to Weight Multiple Objectives.
Proceedings of the INCOSE International Symposium, Singapore, July 19-23, 2009
United Nations, Capacity Assessment And Development in a Systems and Strategic Management Context, 1998
US Army, Training and Doctrine Command, TRADOC Pamphlet (Pam) 525-3-0, The Army Capstone
Concept, Operational AdaptabilityOperating Under Conditions of Uncertainty and Complexity in an Era of
Persistent
Conflict,
2016-2028,
accessed
December
7,
2010
at
http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/tp525-3-0.pdf, December 21, 2009
US Embassy, Kabul Integrated Civil-Military Campaign Plan, accessed December 7, 2010 at
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM130_civ-mil_plan_afghanistan_090907.html, August 10, 2009

16