• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Corps and divisions have difficulty synchronizing the intelligence battlefield operating system with the other operating systems. The concept of developing IPB and linking it to the concept of operation is not always practiced. Additionally, NAIs tend to be used only by the intelligence system. Moreover, IPB and related templates are not updated once the battle begins.

How could the commander and staff better use IPB to support decision making and battle management? Three suggestions:

• Wargaming - The commander and staff must do a better job of integrating IPB during the estimate process. This can be done during the wargaming step in the command estimate. The event and decision support templates should be products of wargaming a particular friendly course of action, not products manufactured by the intelligence staff in isolation.

• G-3 Involvement - The commander and G3 must take a much more active role in the latter stages of IPB. Publications such as FM 34-1 state that IPB is a G2 responsibility. While true for the early stages of IPB, the commander, Chief of Staff, and/or the G3 must take responsibility for integrating IPB once wargaming begins. The decision support template is a decision and fire support aid. Both are operational matters and therefore the G3's responsibility.

• Significant Enemy Courses of Action - Instead of trying to predict the most probable enemy course of action, the G2 should provide the commander and staff with the full range of significant enemy courses of action. Then the staff is obligated to consider those enemy courses of action when it wargames friendly courses of action.

The first two thoughts ensure that the event and decision support templates support the commander's plan. The third ensures that the commander and staff are aware of the full range of options available to the enemy commander before they decide on a plan. All three changes focus IPB away from the G2's process and more directly toward the commander and his plan.

Staff Input to IPB

IPB provides the necessary information about the battle environment for the staff to thoroughly analyze friendly courses of action before selecting one most likely to produce success. During the early steps, the G2 uses the IPB process to develop an intelligence estimate, and thus prepare for wargaming friendly courses of action. Wargaming, in turn, becomes the key step in the command estimate process when the G3, G2, and other staff elements synchronize their efforts. Each staff officer prepares a staff estimate after mission analysis as part of the command estimate process. The CofS/G3 lead the staff members in this wargaming exercise and the commander then selects or modifies a particular course of action.

The new focus still allows the five IPB steps to remain the same:

• Battlefield Area Evaluation (BAE)
• Terrain Analysis (TA)
• Weather Analysis (WA)
• Threat Evaluation
• Threat Integration

Threat Integration

To synchronize the intelligence battlefield operating system with the other battlefield operating systems, the latter stages of IPB must be tied directly to friendly courses of action. To do this, the staff must perform threat integration differently than outlined in FM 34-1.

• The G2 still produces situation templates. The enemy usually has several courses of action that both terrain and doctrine will allow. The G2 needs to display each possible enemy course of action with a separate situation template. The set of situation templates is an intelligence estimate in graphic form. The intelligence staff uses them to translate information about terrain, weather, enemy doctrine, and current intelligence into knowledge about what the enemy could do, i.e., major enemy courses of action.

• After the commander issues guidance to his staff by telling them how he wishes to fight the battle, the G3 then develops courses of action conforming to the commander's guidance. The commander, Chief of Staff or G3 (depending upon individual unit style) must lead the staff in wargaming to evaluate each friendly course of action. They must consider both the environment and enemy capabilities (courses of action). Support is needed from the G2, FSE, and Engineer, at a minimum, to properly wargame courses of action. The staff continues to develop IPB during wargaming when they develop event and decision support templates to support the friendly course of action. Situation templates will also be needed by the commander to develop the command estimate.

Table of Contents
Historical Perspective
Maneuver BOS