The World Cup is Over, But Pentagon's After Action Review Is Just Beginning
Buried deep in the Department of War’s (DOW’s) Fiscal Year 2027 budget request, is an indication that the Pentagon used the preparations for the FIFA World Cup as a readiness exercise to train for coalition combat. The Operations and Maintenance Justification Book notes a request to Congress for over $216 million for “Mission Partner Environment.” The explanation goes on to call out successful applications of this program in “establishing a common information-sharing environment for the United States, Canada, and Mexico during the World Cup,” comparing the experience to allied force communications in Ukraine. Thanks to this one line, we know that DOW quietly used a major world sporting event as a proof of concept for operational testing of command and control (C2) systems.
The Mission Partner Environment (MPE) has been a program of record for several years with hundreds of millions of dollars going to stalwart defense contractors Booz Allen, General Dynamics, as well as relative neo-primes Trace Systems and SOS International. Army doctrine defines MPE as: “a structured framework that supports the planning, training, and execution of operations between mission partners across all five Joint operational phases, the full range of military operations, and all domains.” But despite a tranche of buzzwords (data centricity, zero-trust, cloud based solutions) and 60 page Command and Staff Guides, it’s not clear what MPE is, or what it has to do with soccer.
Mission Partner Environment is the Pentagon’s solution to coordinating with coalition partners when each team comes to the fight with different communications hardware, information systems, and security architectures. In simple terms, MPE is a classified cloud, managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), that allows coalition partners to join a common operating picture. That means streamlining Command and Control, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance and extending Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) to coalition partners.
If there is anything as logistically complicated as war, it would be the World Cup, with 48 national teams participating in 104 matches across three countries, including 11 U.S. cities. Each U.S. based match is designated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a National Special Security Event (NSSE). An NSSE is a designation created by President Clinton in 1998, for particular events needing protection from unconventional threats, including counterterrorism support and “terrorist apprehension and prosecution, increased transportation security, enhanced emergency response, and enhanced cybersecurity.” These are common occurrences for States of the Union, U.N. General Assemblies, and other high profile events. While DHS was the lead agency for such designation coordination, it was a multi-agency process with the Department of War being a key player, as well as FEMA, which issued a $625 million grant for World Cup security.
But with traditional reporters no longer allowed in the Pentagon Press Room, we don’t know the full extent of DOW's involvement in World Cup preparations. We have seen a statement from USNORTHCOM that they are engaged and providing defense support to civil authorities. We also know that Joint Interagency Task Force 401 is providing over $100 million to support enhanced counter-UAS capability at each of the 11 U.S. stadiums. Now we know that somewhere in the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process the DOW also provided MPE support. Presumably, this was done collaboratively with DHS and with “coalition” partners Canada and Mexico.
The theory follows that DOW saw the World Cup as a complex, multinational, high threat, proving ground. Using the NSSE process as a training simulation in the real world, with actual deadlines and real stakes, this global sporting event provided an opportunity to wargame MPE in a way that no mere field training exercise could. Coalition interoperability is a key advantage that the U.S. has with its partners, particularly at NATO. This joint training with Canada and Mexico, and potentially others, could have real lessons for our warfighters in the Pacific or on the ground in Eastern Europe. The role that MPE played in the World Cup protection plan deserves more than a footnote in a budget document.
Still, there are many open questions. Will we see expanded DOW involvement in the 2028 LA Olympics? Does Congress have sufficient visibility into DOW’s support, even if the public doesn’t? Where do counter-UAS operations fall with respect to the Posse Comitatus Act? For now, it’s good to know that despite the Administration’s apparent disdain for coalition partners and allies, our armed forces continue to train how they should be fighting: in teams as large and diverse as possible.
What draws my attention to creating supportive school learning environments is the possibility of making an unfamiliar subject feel closer to everyday life. Clear expectations can make it easier for pupils to understand what a task is asking of them. I would use that point as a starting question when considering supportive school education. I can imagine different answers depending on the situation, so I would want to understand the context before drawing conclusions. How can classroom expectations remain understandable without becoming a long list of rules?
Thinking about connecting vocational learning with Golub-Dobrzyn, I find the smaller practical questions more interesting than a quick conclusion. A realistic practical task can help students see why a classroom concept matters. It makes me curious about the practical side of Golub Dobrzyn vocational education. I am still thinking through the details, and a small example would help me picture how this works in practice. How would you connect an assignment with the situations a learner might encounter at work?
What draws my attention to creating inclusive learning activities in Komorniki is the possibility of making an unfamiliar subject feel closer to everyday life. Offering several ways to participate can help an activity reach pupils with different needs. It makes me curious about the practical side of Komorniki inclusive education. I would be interested in a simple example, because it is often the ordinary details that make an idea memorable. How can teachers adapt a task while keeping its purpose clear?
The subject of coordinating learning across a school complex feels more interesting when there is room for a reader to stop and ask their own questions. Clear information can help families understand how different stages of education connect. I would keep that thought nearby when looking for ideas about school learning pathways. I do not have a settled view yet, but this seems like a good place to slow down and look more closely. What makes a transition between school stages easier to prepare for?
Thinking about connecting practical school skills with future choices, I find the smaller practical questions more interesting than a quick conclusion. Trying a task can help a student notice whether an area of study suits their interests. It gives me a more concrete starting point for thinking about practical school skills. I am more curious about the process than a polished result, because the steps in between are usually where questions appear. What kinds of activities help students explore possibilities before making a decision?