U2P or not U2P? That is the question.

Over the next few posts I’m going to explore the concepts and implications of Understand to Prevent: The military contribution to the prevention of violent conflict (U2P), a multinational civil-military project that was initiated by the UK in 2012 and ended in 2017. I was the civilian lead for much of that time, working with a dedicated team of forward-looking military and civilian personnel.

The rationale behind the project is best explained by the officer who originated the idea, Ian Rigden – then a Brigadier, now with the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in Bangkok.

From 2009 to 2010 the UK MOD’s think tank – The Development, Doctrine and Concept Centre (DCDC) – undertook a time critical project to rewrite National joint intelligence doctrine. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, whatever the rights or wrongs of embarking on those campaigns, were not going well. The UK’s strategic and operational intelligence doctrine, the philosophical underpinning of the way that we operate in the field, had not been refreshed for seven years.?

It was quickly realised that, although we understood and were good at the technical aspects of intelligence, we were really poor at understanding the fears, motivations and rationale behind the decisions of the key actors.

Put simply, we needed clear understanding to be able to communicate with them effectively and change their behaviours. This led to two pieces of doctrine, the ground-breaking JDP 04: Understanding and JDP2.00 on Intelligence Support to Joint Operations.

Useful as these documents are, the team still felt that we had unfinished business with our work on understanding.?

As Sun Tzu once said: ‘The acme of professional skill is to subdue the enemy without fighting.’ Our question was simple: how do we develop understanding that could help us and others to prevent conflict? The basic premise of ‘jaw, jaw is better than war, war’ resonated deeply and we wanted to put far greater focus on dialogue, diplomacy, cultural understanding and emotional intelligence in our spectrum for addressing conflict.

We submitted a proposal for the ‘Understand to Prevent Conflict project (U2P)’ to the US-led multinational experiment, which brings together like-minded Nations to look at operational conundrums. It was approved…’

The project unfolded in two phases – theory (the concept note) and application (the practical handbook).

The U2P Concept Note provides a roadmap for expanding the military’s role to help in preventing violence and fostering peace. It argues that by focusing on understanding, collaboration and adaptability, the military can play a much more proactive role in reducing violence and supporting sustainable, locally-driven conflict management.

To be clear – U2P is not a pacifist’s charter. It accepts that the military – by definition – has a war-fighting role. Additionally, its focus is not primarily on violent conflict between states, as seen in the Russian invasion of Ukraine.?

Reframing the military's role

However, it argues that the military must shift from a basic stance of reactive crisis response to proactive upstream engagement, focused on managing conflict and tensions – before they escalate into violence – and supporting peacebuilding.

This involves developing a human-centred approach, since the prevention of violent conflict requires prioritising the human domain and understanding the motivations, relationships and needs of the people involved. This also includes addressing underlying structural and cultural causes of violence alongside direct violence.

Other key features of the U2P approach are:

1. Conflict and Violence Distinction: Conflict is natural and can drive positive change if managed constructively. Violence, however, is harmful and wherever possible must be prevented. Military efforts should aim to support the management of conflict while preventing violence through trust-building and cooperation.
2. Iterative Framework: U2P introduces a continuous process: Understand-Engage-Act-Endure. This approach seeks to ensure that interventions are adaptive, context-sensitive and sustainable over time.
3. Collaboration with Diverse Actors: Preventing violence requires partnerships with non-military actors such as INGOs, civil society and local leaders. Building trust and co-designing solutions are essential for aligning efforts.
4. Building Trust and Legitimacy: For the military to contribute effectively, it must gain the trust of local communities and other stakeholders, moving away from being perceived solely as a coercive force.
5. Focus on Prevention Across the Conflict Curve: The military should engage at all points of the conflict curve, including before violence occurs and during post-violence reconciliation, rather than focusing solely on crisis points. In this way, the military could reframe themselves conflict experts rather than solely warfighters.

Practical Implications

To achieve this expanded role the military – and thinking about the military – will have to change. Personally, I believe that this will make a career in the military more attractive to more people and contribute to solving the recruitment crisis.

1. Broader Training for Military Personnel: Training must go beyond warfighting to include skills like cultural awareness, negotiation, mediation and conflict transformation.
2. Scalable and Flexible Military Interventions: The military should deploy bespoke, adaptable teams capable of addressing unique conflict dynamics and working alongside civilian actors.
3. Enhanced Understanding of Conflict Drivers: Incorporating multidisciplinary expertise (e.g. social scientists, development experts) to analyse and address structural and cultural causes of violence.
4. Supporting Local Solutions: The military should prioritise locally-led initiatives, empowering communities to take ownership of prevention and peacebuilding efforts.
5. Comprehensive Contact Teams (CCTs): Establish multidisciplinary teams integrating military and civilian expertise to build trust, share knowledge and coordinate prevention efforts.
6. Institutional Adaptation: Prevention principles should be embedded into military doctrine and operations, aligning with broader peacebuilding and security strategies.
7. Monitoring and Evaluation:Prevention efforts should include frameworks for continuous monitoring, evaluation and adaptation to ensure long-term effectiveness.

Clearly, this is a radical reimagining of the role of the military, with a primary focus on human rather than national security. But I believe the U2P approach will be increasingly necessary as climate-driven instability escalates global conflict risks.

I'll say more in my next article and, meanwhile, I welcome your thoughts.