The Military Decision Making Process

The Military Decision Making Process

The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is a decision-making model to assist military members in making sound military decisions and to compile operation orders. This paper will describe MDMP and apply it to a recent job-related decision of the author; preparation for a combat logistics patrol (CLP) while deployed in Iraq. The paper will identify the steps in the model and describe how critical thinking impacted the decision.

The Steps of the Military Decision Making Process

Step 1: receipt of the mission.

"The first step of the MDMP is to receive the mission from higher headquarters, usually in the form of a written order" (An artillerization of the military decision making process (MDMP), n.d., "Step 1: Receipt of the Mission" section, ¶ 1). While deployed in Iraq the author was providing combat engineering support for United States Army. Part of the mission was to deliver personnel and supplies to locations throughout Northern Iraq. A request would come from the higher headquarters to deliver materials from Forward Operating Base (FOB) Marez to another FOB within Iraq.

Step 2: mission analysis.

The second step, mission analysis, is further broken down into 17 steps which are "a guideline to ensure completeness of the analysis rather than as a strict sequential list that must be followed" (Artillerization, n.d., "Step 2: Mission Analysis" section, ¶ 1). The second step is "divided into two parts--task analysis and the update of staff estimates" (Artillerization, n.d., "Step 2: Mission Analysis" section, ¶ 1). During this step, the staff discusses the overall mission then focuses on their respective areas of the mission. "The purpose of task analysis is to identify specified, implied, and essential tasks; constraints; restrictions; facts; necessary assumptions; and forces available; and to develop Requests For Information" (Artillerization, n.d., "Step 2: Mission Analysis" section, ¶ 3). The author's area to focus on was communications. Key tasks were to develop what type of communications, command, and control (C3) could be provided to support the CLP.

Step 3: course of action (COA) development.

"The first step of formal COA development is to review and update facts, assumptions, and forces available that were identified during mission analysis. The second step is to generate conceptual possibilities to support the [mission]" (Artillerization, n.d., "Step 3: Course of Action Development" section, ¶ 1). It is recommended that several COAs be developed during this step. During this step the author would identify which type of equipment was needed to support the CLP to ensure that C3 was available amongst the members of the CLP and between the leadership of the CLP and higher headquarters.

Step 4: COA analysis.

This step analyzes each of the COAs developed in the previous step. "The heart of COA analysis is the war-gaming process . . . ." (Artillerization, n.d., "Step 4: Course of Action Analysis" section, ¶ 1). During this step, staff members come up with possible scenarios that could take place during the execution of the mission. The author's contribution to the war-gaming was what would happen if a piece of C3 equipment or capability were rendered unusable due to either malfunction or enemy action.

Step 5: COA comparison.

"After war-gaming all COAs, the staff now conducts COA comparison to select the COA that best supports the mission and commander's intent" (Artillerization, n.d., "Step 5: Course of Action Comparison" section, ¶ 1). It is the responsibility of all the staff to weigh all factors to decide which COA would best complete the mission. "Weights are determined based on the commander's assessment of the relative importance of each criterion to the accomplishment of the mission" (Artillerization, n.d., "Step 5: Course of Action Comparison" section, ¶ 1). Once the staff chooses a COA, it is presented to the commander in the next step.

Step 6: COA approval.

After the staff has chosen a COA, the leader (usually the highest-ranking officer) of the staff presents them to the commander.

The commander must decide to select the staff's recommended COA, modify a COA, or reject all proposed COAs. If the commander rejects all proposed COAs, the staff must revisit mission analysis and start COA development over again. Likewise, if the commander modifies a COA, the staff must war-game the modifications (Artillerization, n.d., "Step 6: Course of Action Approval" section, ¶ 1).

Once