Red Team Training (UFMCS)

The writer served in the U.S. Army around 2010, during the Afghanistan period, and took Red Team training there. The course ran through the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies (UFMCS), under TRADOC (Training and Doctrine Command).

Red Team training taught people to play the adversary in wargaming and planning scenarios. The purpose was to test a plan by thinking as the enemy would and by challenging the plan’s assumptions before resources were committed.

The part the writer values most is that the course was mostly about cultural empathy and about why people act as they do. Tactics and weapons were not the main subject.

Core takeaways

• Red teaming means playing the enemy against your own plan and challenging its assumptions before resources are committed.
• The course taught four techniques: self-awareness, applied critical thinking, perspective modeling, and cultural empathy.
• Cultural empathy was one of the most stressed of the four. There is no universal “normal”, and you take another group’s thinking as it is, without passing it through your own beliefs or ideals.
• The writer learned more about good faith and nonviolent methods in the Army than about weapons. Many problems treated as an enemy can be settled by peaceful means such as negotiation.
• The Army as a whole in that period had common misogyny and toxic behavior, and a soldier could not choose or get away from the people around them. TRADOC itself was well designed.
• The UFMCS Red Team Handbook is public and is one of the best resources on the subject.

The four techniques

The course stressed four techniques.

Self-awareness. It is especially important in high-stakes environments. People with more self-awareness tend to communicate with more authority.

Applied critical thinking. The focus was on avoiding bias and avoiding groupthink.

Perspective modeling. Frameworks such as “Four Ways of Seeing” were used to lay out how each of the different actors in a situation sees it.

Cultural empathy. This was one of the most stressed skills in the course. The core idea is that there is no universal “normal.” You accept another group’s patterns of thought as they are, without filtering them through your own beliefs or ideals. Tools such as PMESII-PT were used for this.

What the writer took from it

The most surprising part of the course, and the most valuable, was how much of it was about cultural empathy and about why people behave as they do. Tactics and weapons were not the main subject.

The writer put it this way:

“A lot of media talks about how the military tends to take scientific endeavors and make them into weapons. I would argue this is one of those cases where the opposite is true. I personally found my experience with Red teaming to be more about cultural empathy, and an acknowledgment that, sometimes, there are reasons for things. Many problems that we think of as an enemy can be solved through peaceful means, negotiations, etc.”

And in a second note:

“It’s strange how my time in the Army has taught me more about how to use good faith and nonviolent methods, rather than how to use actual weapons.”

The writer counts the course as one of the most interesting and engaging experiences of the whole Army period. The course made participants examine and question their old ways of thinking, their ideologies, and their beliefs.

The Army around the training

The Red Team course was excellent. The Army as a whole in that period had significant cultural problems. Misogyny and toxic behavior were common, and this made it hard for some people to form genuine connections with others. A soldier was placed with people they had not chosen and could not get away from. The writer compared it to being paired at random with strangers in an online game that has no mute button.

The writer rates TRADOC itself highly and called it an “amazingly designed machine”. It is purposeful, efficient, and built on purpose to push people beyond what they are comfortable with.

The principle underneath

Red teaming, done well, is a disciplined practice with two parts: cultural empathy, and strict challenging of assumptions. Aggression and conflict are not its main content. The aim is to understand how the other side thinks well enough to predict its moves, and to find a nonviolent or lower-cost solution when one is possible.

The UFMCS Red Team Handbook is publicly available and is still one of the best resources on the subject.

How to practice this

1. Take a plan you are about to commit resources to. Play the adversary against it and list the assumptions it rests on. Notice which assumptions you had never written down.
2. Pick one group you are planning against or negotiating with. Describe how they think without filtering it through your own beliefs or ideals. Notice where you had been treating your own “normal” as universal. PMESII-PT is one tool the course used for this.
3. Use “Four Ways of Seeing” on one situation. Write down how each actor in it sees the situation. Notice which actor’s view you had never laid out before.
4. In a group decision, watch for bias and for groupthink. Notice whether anyone has challenged the plan’s assumptions, or whether everyone agreed too early.
5. Before a high-stakes meeting, write down what you assume and what you feel about it. Notice whether you communicate with more authority after doing this.
6. Take one problem you think of as an enemy. Ask whether there are reasons behind the other side’s behavior. Notice whether a peaceful means, such as negotiation, could solve it.

Related pages

• Red Teaming
• Applied Critical Thinking: Testing Frames
• Experiences

Sources

• Original NX notes: Capture/red_team.org and Capture/us_army.org
• Personal experience during U.S. Army service (UFMCS Red Team training)