Exercises

• Diagnose corruption risk areas and their impact on the mission (J2, J5, J4, J8, J9);
• Assess the mission’s potential impact on the manifestations and severity of corruption threats (J2, J5, J9);
• Prepare, implement and communicate mitigation measures (J2, J4, J5, J8, J9);
• Incorporate corruption issues into the battle rhythm and the overall HQ workflows (Command Group).

It is important to remember that in many cases, especially in countries where corruption is systemic, engagement with corrupt actors will be necessary and unavoidable as individuals may have limited choice on whether to engage with corruption. The goal of the exercise is not to withdraw or automatically freeze all contact with corrupt actors. It might sometimes be necessary, but the overall goal is to understand the risks corrupt actors pose; mitigate these risks; and assess whether it’s possible to change their behaviour by changing the balance of incentives.

To be successfully integrated with exercise scenarios, corruption-related elements should:

• Be used to initiate a chain of events to test and practice a wide range of skills, rather than being approached as a separate issue;
• Tie into other issues that are key to the unit being trained and to its mission, such as kinetic operations, partnering with host nation forces, and supply of key items enabling the operation.

Employing corruption in an exercise scenario is similar to using an air attack as a trigger for a chain of events and tests. An air attack would kick-start a number of tests at different levels for different parts of the force. It would test the unit’s defensive procedures, the local HQ’s command and control, the regional command’s plans for the medical chain, and the strategic plan for messaging.

Corruption scenarios are similar in that they can incorporate a wide range of issues. Storylines such as, for example, bribery at host nation checkpoints, can be used to test:

• unit reporting and implementation procedures;
• local HQ’s civil affairs units’ information gathering and response procedures;
• regional command’s legal support capability;
• strategic command’s integration with other actors.

To mainstream corruption issues in exercises, planners need to include it from the very beginning of the exercise design cycle and ensure that they are reflected in training objectives, exercise design, the conduct of exercises, and evaluation. When corruption is an afterthought in exercises and remains limited to a side story, it will only be tentatively connected to the main issues the training audience will deal with and therefore will be easy to ignore. As corruption is a new issue for most militaries and requires awareness and skills which are not always easily available, ignoring it can be very easy. Therefore, exercise design should incorporate it to a degree which means that corruption is connected to other issues and therefore more likely to be considered in staff activities.

• Training objectives should include corruption-related goals, from diagnosing the main corruption risks that could affect the operation to implementing mitigation measures where possible and liaising with others to support anti-corruption activity. This should come with evaluation criteria to guide assessment.
• Country information and incident development: planning for corruption themes in exercises should be included as early as possible, with information contained in country books and storylines designed in the incident development phase. This will enable exercise planners to design incidents which can connect corruption issues with other themes, including kinetic operations. The earlier corruption issues appear in the scenario, the more comprehensive the response can be.
• Ownership: since corruption is a new issue for the armed forces, bringing in Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) for both design and implementation phases can be informative and helps design storylines with required depth. However, ownership of the corruption storylines should remain firmly within the core Exercise Control (EXCON) team and design of corruption-related storylines needs to involve military officers. This will help ensure not only consistency if SMEs cannot participate in the entire exercise design and implementation, but also appropriate language and linkage with core military issues.
• Implementation allies: if corruption themes are new to the training audience, their significance and warning signs might be neglected. In some cases, it can be helpful to have a member of the training audience who is sensitised to the corruption themes and helps others pick up on them as they appear. This could be, for example, a Commander asking questions regarding corruption issues of staff, or a member of the Command Group bringing corruption themes to the attention of particular divisions.

• Storyline depth: corruption story arcs need depth, with several layers of information and intelligence, and they often require specialist expertise.
• Time jumps: both corruption risks and mitigation measures need time to take effect; the right timescales are key to creating realistic expectations. This might necessitate time jumps within the exercises.
• Doctrine gaps: there may be no policy or doctrine related to corruption, meaning that alternative guidance needs to be provided and the exercise will be as much about testing procedures as about identifying gaps that will need to be addressed beyond the exercise.
• Level of training: the required response level changes with the different manifestations of corruption, and needs guidance on expectations for each level.
• Evaluation: extended times, complexity of issues and multiple actors mean that outputs and processes (such as consultation) rather than impact could be evaluated.