The Army has begun to adapt to perceived changes in the national security environment. One element of the adaptation is the creation of the Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT). While many argue that the IBCT will be faster and more lethal little attention has been paid to the IBCT's suitability for stability and support operations. The research was intended to answer that question. Several political and military sources were consulted to provide a general concept. From the political sources, Lincoln Bloomfield and Amelia Leiss', Controlling Small War, discussed some of the political decision maker's requirements in stability and support operations. Next, Brian Bond's, Pursuit of Victory, discussed the components of decisive victory in stability and support operations. Then, John Hunt's "OOTW: A Concept in Flux" addressed the reasons for the absence of a general theory for OOTW (operations other then war). Finally, Walter Clarke and Robert Gosende's "The political Component: The Missing Element in US Intervention Planning" presented current opinions of the significant capabilities required for stability and support operations. From the military sources, The USMC Small Wars manual presented a doctrinal approach to linking tactical military action to operational objectives in stability and support operations. FM 3-0 presented the Army's doctrinal approach for linking Army actions to joint, interagency, and multinational operations. By combining the political and military dimensions, a general concept of stability and support operations emerged. The general concept is that the goal of US military forces in stability and support operations is to influence the political, civil, and military environments. Influencing the three environments means military forces must administer limited government, providing national assistance, and use or threaten the use of lethal force. At the tactical level battalions and brigades must influence the political, civil, and military environments in order to link tactical actions to operational objectives. The requirements for stability and support operations provided a basis with which to compare the planned organization for the IBCT and that of an existing Army organization, the Armored Cavalry Regiment - Light. The comparison with an existing Army organization was necessary to determine whether the proposed IBCT was providing any new capabilities not found in the existing force. The comparison of the two forces was quantified in terms of the battlefield operating systems (BOS). There are seven BOS but only three require significant change in stability and support operations: maneuver, intelligence, and command and control. When the comparison was completed, three things were discovered. First, the IBCT is optimized to influence the military environment. Second, the IBCT is superior to the existing force ACR-L. Finally, the IBCT lacks the required capabilities for effective execution of stability and support operations.

ADA 389395 Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)