Magazine article Joint Force Quarterly

Joint Doctrine Update: Joint Chief of Staff J7 Joint Education and Doctrine Division

Magazine article Joint Force Quarterly

Joint Doctrine Update: Joint Chief of Staff J7 Joint Education and Doctrine Division

Article excerpt

The joint doctrine development community continues its aggressive pace of publication revision. Among more than a dozen titles already signed this year, of most significance is the approval of the Capstone joint publication in the joint doctrine hierarchy. Joint Publication (JP) 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States, recently signed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, provides the overarching, authoritative guidance for the employment of the Armed Forces. The importance of the Capstone publication cannot be overstated, particularly with its treatment of warfare and unity of effort.

"Foundations," the first chapter of JP 1, captures for the first time in joint doctrine the intellectual framework surrounding traditional and irregular warfare. At the crux of this discussion with regard to the two types of warfare is the fundamental difference between them--the strategic purpose. Whereas traditional warfare aims to force a change in an adversary's government or policies, irregular warfare seeks to gain legitimacy and influence over a relevant population.

JP 1, the consolidated product of its previous version and JP 0-2, Unified Action Armed Forces, also provides clarity with respect to the relationships between national strategic direction, unified action, and unity of effort. According to JP 1, National Strategic Direction--governed by the Constitution, Federal law, and U.S. Government policy regarding internationally recognized law--leads to unified action. JP 1 redefines unified action as the "synchronization, coordination and/or integration of the activities of governmental and nongovernmental entities with military operations to achieve unity of effort." Coordination, a word absent from the previous definition, acknowledges the lack of a hierarchical relationship between myriad organizations that may work together. Defense Department terminology no longer recognizes the phrase Unified Action Armed Forces. Finally, JP 1 introduces the joint definition of unity of effort: "Coordination and cooperation toward common objectives, even if the participants are not necessarily part of the same command or organization--the product of successful unified action." The exact wording of these definitions provides accuracy and precision to often confusing relationships (that is, does unity of effort lead to unified action, or vice versa?). Simply stated, national strategic direction leads to unified action; successful unified action produces unity of effort.

The revision of JP 1 followed shortly after the approval of the Keystone publications for personnel, operations, and planning (JPs 1-0, 3-0, and 5-0, respectively). With the projected approval of the revisions of the intelligence and logistics Keystone publications (JPs 2-0 and 4-0, respectively) anticipated for later this year, joint doctrine will remain relevant, consistent, and beneficial to the joint warfighter. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.