Capricia Turner

Capricia Turner

An Operation Sergeant Major (SGM) plays an essential role in the development of a course of action (COA). As you indicated in your post, SGMs are always at the forefront of the planning process working closely with staff to come up with practical and complete COA. One essential role of an SGM and the staff is to identify the mission problem and develop criteria for developing a COA that aligns with the intent of the commander and higher commander. Reports indicate that problem identification and criteria development requires SGM and the staff to collect data on the Operation Environment (OE) and organize it per the guidance of the commander (Department of Army, 2019). The information collected is essential for framing an OE during the development of a COA in the Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP). However, as you stated in your post, building a problem and identifying criteria cannot be similar to all missions as they are not a one size fits all concept. The nature of the mission, the possible reaction of enemies, intent of the commander, and state of the OE are significant factors that determine the nature of the problem and the criteria for developing a COA. The success of such processes and tasks required for staff to conduct a COA in MDMP depends on how well the SGM facilitates them. The development of a COA is not a straightforward and easy process. The SGM must reduce the complexities of constructing a COA by ensuring the staff has substantial knowledge and understanding of the mission, the intent of the commander, and how to work collaboratively in the processes.

Dustin Gensley

The processes involved in the development of COA are very crucial for the success of a mission. As you stated in your post, there are multiple processes involved in COA development. SGMs oversee the various processes of COA development. The decisions made by the SGM and staff profoundly influence the outcome of a mission. Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) is a practical approach in the military used to analyze operation environments (OEs) to assist in developing friendly and complete COA. I, therefore, agree with you that the results of IBP, which are intelligence products, are used during the military decision-making process (MDMP) to assist in developing friendly COAs and decision points for the commander. Situational awareness and understanding are crucial elements for developing friendly COAs and determining key points for decision-making. In IBP, the SGM and the staff continuously work together, collecting relevant information needed to analyze operational variables to find out how they can fit the mission. The process helps SGM and the staff to understand the nature of OE, opportunities, threats, obstacles, and points of leverage. The information is necessary for developing a COA framework that facilitates the development of COA statements and sketches that align with the mission and commander’s intent. As you argued in your post, it is the completeness and effectiveness of COA statements and sketches that determine whether the commander would approve the recommended COAs by the staff or return them to the drawing board. It is, therefore, crucial for the staff to have situational awareness and understanding for them to develop practical COAs. SGMs play essential roles in helping staff have such awareness and understanding. As you clearly stated in your post, the responsibilities of the SGM in the processes is to help the staff stay focused, task-oriented, and also give input and answers to any questions. When the staff is focused, task-oriented, and have the support of SGM, they are likely to have a better awareness and understanding of situations and mission as it relates to the intent of the commander. This can help to mitigate the issue of going back to the drawing board due to the commander rejecting the staff’s COA.