Why do we discuss what was supposed to happen before discussing what actually happened during an AAR?

• A. To confirm the mission has changed
• B. To ensure the AAR is short
• C. To re-establish commander's intent and performance standards so the unit can identify their strengths and weaknesses
• D. To assign blame for failures

Answer: (C)

In an After Action Review, starting with what was supposed to happen creates the baseline of expectations—the commander's intent, mission objectives, and performance standards. This framing gives you a clear yardstick to compare actual actions against the planned course, so you can see where decisions aligned with guidance and where they diverged. When you measure results against that standard, you can identify specific strengths to repeat and weaknesses to address, turning the debrief into concrete lessons for the next operation. The aim is learning and improvement, not fault-finding.

This approach isn’t about shortening the discussion, confirming a change in mission, or placing blame. It’s about grounding the discussion in the guidance that shaped the operation so the team can accurately determine gaps and how to close them.