you know where you were at such-and-such a time, but in an envi-
ronment where one hilltop can look pretty much like the next, you
may or may not be correct. Thanks to unobtrusive sensors, the
database can pinpoint exactly where you were and what you were
doing. Soldiers call this “ground truth.” Combined with ground
truth, there must be a fairly unambiguous understanding of what
should have happened, and that comes from having standards
derived from doctrine.^1
While the purposes are simple, the process is not. It is not a
matter of sitting down and discussing what happened and how
everyone may feel about it. An AAR is far more structural. The
discussion is structured according to identifiable events and against
measurable standards. AAR questions are (1) What happened? (2)
Why did it happen? and (3) What should be done about it?^2 More
specifically, the procedure is as follows:^3
- Review what the unit intended to accomplish (the overall
mission and commander’s intent) - Establish the “ground truth” of what actually happened by
means of a moment-by-moment replay of critical battlefield
events - Explore what might have caused the actual results, focusing
on one or a few key issues - Give the unit the opportunity to reflect on what it should
learn from this review, including what unit members did well
that they want to sustain in future operations and what they
think they need to improve - Preview the next day’s mission and issues that might arise
The AAR is conducted at all levels of the Army, from platoon
(about forty soldiers led by a lieutenant) to company (three to four
platoons) to battalion (about five companies) to brigade (two or
more battalions) to division (normally three brigades commanded
by a major general). These different-level units conduct their own
272 LEADINGORGANIZATIONALLEARNING