  The inevitable incompleteness of any collection of PMESII models, along with
poorly understood methods for combining heterogeneous models, leads to major
uncertainty regarding the reliability of computational tools. This uncertainty
is further exacerbated by difficulties in validation of such tools. They should
only be used as aids to human analysis and decision-making. A practitioner must
wonder: how can we accommodate the uncertainty of a tool's results by applying
human judgment appropriately?
  In this paper, we describe two examples where planners and analysts used (or
could have used) computational tools to obtain estimates of effects of various
actions under consideration. Then they considered these computational estimates
to draw their own conclusions regarding the effects that would likely emerge
from proposed actions taken by the international mission.
  The key idea, in both of our examples, is a continuous cycle of anticipations
and actions; in each cycle computational estimates of effects help intervention
managers determine appropriate actions, and then assessments of real-world
outcomes guide the next increment of computational estimates. With a proper
methodology, PMESII modeling tools can offer valuable insights and encourage
learning, even if they will never produce fully accurate estimates useable in a
customary, strictly predictive manner.
