The 2016 RimPac Exercise. Photo: U.S. Navy
When participants of the world’s largest naval exercise gather in Pearl Harbor this July for the Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RimPac), the traditional hard power, interoperability, and free-play-focused aspects of the exercise may garner the greatest attention. A select group of international participants, however, will head to Ford Island for the humanitarian assistance and disaster relief exercise (HA/DR), a small but influential component of RimPac programming boasting outsized expectations.
Participants will carry out operations associated with humanitarian assistance processes. Furthermore, as the soldiers, sailors, and airmen practice their roles in those HA/DR operations, they will find themselves among not only close allies and partners, but also potential competitors.
With RimPac 2018 fast approaching, the following recommendations will enhance and build on the past two HA/DR exercises.
Embrace the Civilians
Since the 2014 RimPac HA/DR, the number of civilian participants has increased and the variety of civilian organizations has expanded. This is a boon and a burden. Civilians and members of the armed forces have to work in close quarters during the exercise—in the real world, they might prefer not to do so. But the ever-more-realistic inclusion of field tents for all participants (and the resulting spontaneous meetings) represent an enormous step forward in exercise realism. In 2014, the majority of the HA/DR exercise was mainly a planning exercise conducted in an isolated room, but in 2016 the exercise included live play and was conducted with the noise of helicopters overhead and generators humming near the tents in which participants worked and lived.
Having real-world experts participate is a must, but the commitment to accuracy in this respect can yield unanticipated consequences. The scenario could be diverted by participants adopting a U.N. concept of operations or awaiting approval from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). To these civilian organizations, upholding proper HA/DR protocol is an important motivation for participating. Safeguarding precedence over the military in cases of humanitarian assistance (where the military plays a supporting not supported role) is a key concern, and communicating the fundamentals of “humanitarian space” to the military becomes a priority. From the perspective of USAID, State Department, or key non-governmental organization players, executing these goals ensures that the exercise offers meaningful training for their own organizations.
Suddenly, at the whim of the diverse institutional identities of the civilian organizations present—and their divergent aims—the exercise runs the risk of having the focus shift away from engagement with foreign militaries. To ameliorate this risk, embrace this complexity early. Recognize the positive aspects of this developing civil-military environment while maintaining the goal of the HA/DR within the larger RimPac. Define the aspects of the HA/DR exercise process that are flexible and those that are non-negotiable components key to facilitating defense relations.
In addition, socialize with civilians early to exercise expectations, just as one does with military participants. Throughout these socialization efforts, communicate early and often to all participants that the aim of this RimPac is not to perfect an HA/DR response. Rather, it is to offer new and broader spaces for engagement with traditional and non-traditional actors. The blunt truth is this: HA/DR is simply one platform out of many intended to facilitate engagement.
Create Lines of Communication and Responsibility
What was once known as simply a military-to-military exercise can no longer be described so simply. RIMPAC has civilians and military members, governmental, nongovernmental, Americans and foreigners, close allies and distant partners alike. As a result, once the exercise begins it is paramount that identities remain clearly discernible to all involved. In a scenario-driven arena such as the HA/DR portion of RimPac, success depends on it.
To this end, acknowledge and delineate the difference between “in-scenario” and “ex-scenario” spaces. Explicitly indicate when participants are “in play” within a scenario setting. Explicitly indicate when participants are playing roles other than themselves. This allows participants to feel more comfortable when their “exercise selves” are not confused with their real-life identities. Clearly defining these distinctions allows more room for error—and, thus, growth—because mistakes become attributable to the unique environment and assigned artificial role, not the real-world individual. The further removed the exercise scenario is from “real life,” the more participants need protection. If one is asking practitioners to assume greater risk by undertaking unfamiliar actions with foreign and unknown companions, the risk of misinterpretation of behavior and miscommunication of intent is high. If the goal is for U.S. armed forces to interact with foreign counterparts, it must be safe for all to do so without fear of unanticipated repercussions.
Don’t Forget the “Host Nation”
The relatively anonymous “host nation” character may seem unimportant in the scheme of an exercise. After all, enacting a fictitious host nation in a scenario’s story line would require greater role play, thereby increasing the artificiality of the programming. On the other hand, coordination with the host nation is key to the military participants’ operational responses to the HA/DR scenario; it is foremost and paramount within the civilian aid organizations’ response plans. The absence of a strong scenario host nation only inserts an additional element of confusion. Assigning more cohesive groups to play the host nation might allow more realistic coordination among civilian and military participants.
In fact, ensuring that such a host nation is represented appropriately may increase the opportunities for engagement by creating yet another secure and safe environment for interaction among unfamiliar participants. Free, unscheduled time in an exercise involving non-traditional partners is rarely positive. In such circumstances, individuals bear the burden of their national identity heavily; they feel the fate of their personal careers on the line.
By creating another venue within the exercise that encourages interactions within prescribed parameters, exercise coordinators maintain the delineation of scenario roles and spaces while still progressing forward on the relationship-building path key to fulfilling RimPac’s engagement goals.
Share Feedback Widely
U.S. strategic defense engagement goals are well known for emphasis on engagement among lower-ranking military personnel.[1] Even when such goals come to fruition, however, there are few opportunities for feedback among those doing the bulk of such exercises.
HA/DR exercises would benefit from regular briefings among all involved, not simply the leaders. Meetings that bring together the variety of foreign militaries for discussions remove the burden of unstructured interactions. This recommendation represents yet another effort to address participants’ fears in foreign engagement spaces. It is the leaders’ responsibility to address these concerns by acting as mediators.
Increasing awareness of the differences that participants will encounter—particularly regarding civil-military coordination—would foster patience and encourage communication when challenges arise. Consider integrating group briefings on national aid response cultures into the early phases of the exercise.
Treat Civilians Like You Want Them There
Despite the difficulties that large numbers of civilian participants introduce, they should not be pushed to the periphery. Including them in social events would encourage civil-military relationships alongside the military-to-military relationships. It is a mistake to approach the two relationships as mutually exclusive.
Demonstrate Unity
Observations in past exercises drew attention to underused (and often absent) institutions related to humanitarian aid or the U.S. defense establishment. Foremost, there was consternation over the fact that the Center for Excellence in Disaster Management and Humanitarian Aid was located within steps of the main exercise area, and yet did not participate. Regardless of the reasoning, the optics were not good.
Confusion also followed the finding that the local American Red Cross equivalent of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies was not initially present. Eyebrows were raised further at open disagreements between USAID and Department of Defense (DoD) officials regarding protocol between civilian and military personnel in an HA/DR crisis.
At some point, these competing institutions must put aside their rivalries and cooperate with one another. Surely U.S. strategic imperatives take precedent over institutional disagreements.
The presence of challenges should not deter the U.S. defense establishment from pursuing complex exercises and tackling complicated issues. The United States leads when it breaks new ground, going where other nations do not have the national confidence or institutional means. RimPac is challenging—but that is what sets it apart. Measured steps are required to address valid concerns. But U.S. leadership distinguishes itself by leading communication across defense institutions around the world. Engagement across novel platforms such as RimPac's HA/DR exercise reflect DoD’s willingness to lead aggressively the strategic competition playing out on the global stage.
[1] David M. Finkelstein and Michael A. McDevitt, “‘Engaging DoD: Chinese Perspectives on Military Relations with the United States’ (A Summary Report),” Project Asia (Alexandria, VA: The CNA Corporation, 1999).
As a doctoral student at the University of Cambridge, Evelyn Boettcher was a student observer with the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Working Group at the Rim of the Pacific Exercises in 2014 and 2016. Her doctoral studies (completed in October 2017) focused on security cooperation practices across the Asia-Pacific Region.
For more great Proceedings content, click here.