Hubbry Logo
Military operation planMilitary operation planMain
Open search
Military operation plan
Community hub
Military operation plan
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Military operation plan
Military operation plan
Military operation plan
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Part of a series on
War
(outline)
History
Military
Battlespace
Weapons
Tactics
List of military tactics
Operational
Strategy
List of military strategies and concepts
Grand strategy
Administrative
Organization
Personnel
Logistics
Science
Law
Theory
Non-warfare
Culture
Books
Related
Lists

A military operation plan (commonly called a war plan before World War II) is a formal plan for military armed forces, their military organizations and units to conduct operations, as drawn up by commanders within the combat operations process in achieving objectives before or during a conflict.[1] Military plans are generally produced in accordance with the military doctrine of the troops involved. Because planning is a valuable exercise for senior military staff, in peacetime nations generally produce plans (of varying detail) even for very unlikely hypothetical scenarios.

Plan XVII and the Schlieffen Plan are examples of World War I military plans. The United States developed a famous color-coded set of war plans in the early 20th century; see United States color-coded war plans.

Military plans often have code names.

United States

[edit]

A U.S. Department of Defense Operations Plan (OPLAN) is a complete and detailed plan for conducting joint military operations.[2] Such plans are developed by the staff of a Unified Combatant Command in response to actual or potential situations for which military operations may be required. An OPLAN is executed when the commander issues an operations order (OPORD), or when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) issues an execute order (EXORD) at the direction of the United States Secretary of Defense (Secdef) to implement a decision by the President to initiate military operations. A concept plan (CONPLAN) is an operation plan in concept form, often lacking the level of details normally found in other military plans.

Among publicly known U.S. Operations Plans are two which address possible events on the Korean Peninsula, OPLAN 5027, the U.S. general war plan which has been regularly updated since at least the mid-1990s, and OPLAN 5029, a plan catering to a sudden collapse of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. OPLAN 8044 and OPLAN 8010 are both successor plans to the Single Integrated Operational Plan, the general plan for nuclear war from 1961 to 2003. OPLAN 1003-98 was the pre-2002 plan for war with Iraq. As of 2024, the current general plan is OPLAN 8010-12.[3]

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

[edit]

In North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) the successful planning of multinational military operations requires common doctrine. This doctrine is documented in Allied Joint Publication (AJP) five, which is aimed primarily at those engaged in operational-level planning, specifically commanders and staffs employed in joint force command headquarters and component command headquarters. It describes the fundamental aspects of planning joint operations at the operational level and provides an overarching framework of the key planning principles, considerations and process steps that are followed in operational-level planning.[4]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Military operation plan

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A military operation plan (OPLAN) is a complete and detailed joint plan containing a full description of the , all applicable annexes, and time-phased force and deployment data (TPFDD). Developed by combatant commanders or joint force commanders through the Joint Planning Process (JPP), it translates strategic guidance into coordinated military activities, specifying force requirements, , sustainment, and tasks to achieve objectives within resource constraints and policy limits. OPLANs serve as executable frameworks for contingency responses to threats or crises, integrating operational design elements such as lines of effort, , and assessments of centers of gravity, while enabling synchronization across phases from deployment to redeployment. Unlike concept plans (CONPLANs), which provide abbreviated outlines without full TPFDD and require expansion for execution, OPLANs represent Level 4 planning detail for scenarios demanding thorough preparation due to scale, timing, or multinational involvement. They precede operation orders (OPORDs), which direct imminent action based on an approved OPLAN, and form branches of broader campaign plans to address hypothetical contingencies beyond ongoing operations. Even when not executed, OPLANs inform force structure, , acquisition, and readiness by identifying gaps in capabilities and under contested conditions. This doctrinal approach, codified in Joint Publication 5-0, ensures adaptive responses to dynamic operational environments while aligning with priorities.

Fundamentals

Definition and Core Principles

A military operation plan, often abbreviated as OPLAN in U.S. doctrine, constitutes a comprehensive document that delineates the allocation of forces, assigned tasks, timelines, logistical support, and contingency measures required to execute joint military operations in a hostile environment. This structured blueprint translates higher-level strategic intent into executable actions, specifying command relationships, deployment sequences, and resource utilization to achieve defined objectives while mitigating uncertainties inherent in combat. Unlike preliminary concepts, an OPLAN provides a detailed, phased framework ready for activation, evolving from earlier pre-World War II war plans—such as national mobilization outlines—into modern formats emphasizing joint interoperability and adaptability. Central to operational planning are the ends-ways-means-risk framework and principles rooted in causal dynamics of warfare, which demand alignment of desired outcomes (ends) with methods of employment (ways), available resources (means), and calculated uncertainties (risk). Planners prioritize achievable end states verifiable through empirical indicators, such as decisive points where enemy capabilities can be disrupted, rather than unattainable ideals disconnected from battlefield realities. Causal realism underscores the necessity of modeling adversary reactions—drawing on historical force-on-force data and behavioral patterns—to avoid over-optimistic assumptions that have repeatedly led to operational failures in conflicts like and . This approach ensures plans incorporate feedback loops for real-time adjustment, balancing ambition with the probabilistic nature of combat outcomes. Military operation plans occupy the , bridging —which encompasses national policy and long-term resource commitments—with tactics, the immediate maneuvers governing individual engagements. While sets overarching aims independent of specific battles, operational plans orchestrate campaigns across theaters, integrating and sequencing to link tactical victories into cumulative strategic effects. Emphasis falls on quantifiable assessments, including force ratios (typically requiring 3:1 superiority for offensive success in conventional scenarios), terrain exploitation for maneuver advantages, and sustainment metrics, over subjective narratives lacking evidential support. This enforces disciplined escalation, preventing tactical prowess from dissipating without operational coherence.

Purpose and Objectives

Military operation plans primarily translate overarching national strategies into coherent, executable military actions, bridging the gap between ends and operational means to enable decisive outcomes in conflict. By delineating specific tasks, timelines, and resource commitments, these plans allocate forces efficiently, synchronize and multinational components, and incorporate contingencies for deterrence, controlled escalation, or rapid shifts in posture, thereby minimizing ad hoc responses that could dissipate advantages. Core objectives focus on structuring operations across defined phases to achieve progressive dominance while sustaining and adapting to intelligence inputs, as exemplified in U.S. joint doctrine's framework from Phase 0 (shaping the operational environment through prepositioning and partnerships) to Phase 5 (transitioning to post-hostilities). This phased approach ensures measurable progress toward end states, such as neutralizing threats or securing , with emphasis on verifiable milestones that align efforts with political intent and material overmatch. Success hinges on plans that reflect causal realities like sustained political commitment and quantifiable superiority, with analysis of U.S. interventions indicating a 63% achievement rate for political objectives when limited to discrete, assessable goals rather than vague transformations. Overly sanguine projections, however, frequently overlook war's frictional dynamics—unpredictable human factors, adaptive adversaries, and informational opacity—which erode timelines and amplify risks, as evidenced by historical patterns where rigid assumptions outpace battlefield adaptation.

Historical Development

Early War Planning

In ancient , formalized military planning emerged with Sun Tzu's (c. BCE), which prioritized deception to mislead enemies and detailed analysis of to secure positional advantages, enabling victories through superior preparation rather than brute force. These principles underscored causal outcomes where foreknowledge of ground and feints disrupted adversary cohesion, as evidenced by historical applications in Chinese warfare yielding decisive results without prolonged engagements. Roman campaigns further demonstrated logistical foresight, as seen in Scipio Africanus's operations during the Second Punic War (218–201 BCE), where he meticulously calculated supply lines and forage requirements to sustain legions across and , countering Hannibal's mobility through sustained provisioning rather than reactive . This approach contrasted with ad-hoc responses, as Scipio's pre-campaign stockpiling of grain, weapons, and shipping—totaling thousands of tons—ensured operational continuity amid extended sieges and maneuvers, contributing to Carthage's defeat at Zama in 202 BCE. The limitations of intuitive command became starkly evident in Napoleon's 1812 Russian invasion, where failure to plan for vast distances and harsh logistics—relying on foraging for 600,000 troops without adequate depots—resulted in supply breakdowns, disease, and attrition that reduced the Grande Armée to under 50,000 effectives by retreat, illustrating how unaddressed causal chains of overextension precipitated collapse. By the , Prussia's post-1806 Jena-Auerstedt defeat—where disorganized mobilization delayed responses to Napoleonic forces—prompted General Staff reforms under and August von Gneisenau, institutionalizing wargaming () simulations and precise timetables for troop assembly to replace haphazard orders with verifiable rehearsals. These innovations shifted warfare toward systematic foresight, empirically validated in the 1870 , where Prussian rail timetables enabled mobilization of 470,000 men in eight days versus France's 21 days for 300,000, facilitating rapid encirclements and decisive battles like Sedan on September 2, 1870.

20th Century Evolution

The stalemates of World War I's , characterized by prolonged attrition and minimal territorial gains despite massive casualties exceeding 20 million, underscored the limitations of uncoordinated, rigid offensive doctrines, prompting militaries worldwide to develop more systematic interwar planning frameworks. In the United States, this led to the evolution from single-theater color plans, such as against , into the Rainbow series during the and , which addressed multi-front hemispheric defense scenarios involving potential coalitions of adversaries like , , and . These plans emphasized joint resource allocation and phased operations, drawing empirical lessons from the war's failures to integrate and for sustained campaigns. By , these interwar doctrines matured into comprehensive operation plans (OPLANs), exemplified by , the 1944 Allied invasion of , which was conceived as early as 1942 and coordinated air, sea, and ground forces across multiple commands to achieve surprise and overwhelming force application. Allied planning successes stemmed from institutionalized integration via bodies like the , enabling data-informed adaptations such as deception operations and logistical buildups that contrasted sharply with ' reliance on improvisational responses and centralized command interference, which often disrupted long-term strategic coherence. Following the war, the U.S. formalized joint planning through the , which established a permanent to unify service branches under a National Military Establishment, standardizing contingency development across theaters. During the , NATO's (SHAPE), activated in 1951, produced contingency documents emphasizing verifiable force deployments for nuclear deterrence, informed by proxy conflict data like the , which highlighted the need for scalable responses to Soviet conventional superiority. These plans shifted toward strategies by the mid-1950s, integrating nuclear options with conventional postures to maintain credible thresholds against escalation, as evidenced in early strategic concepts that quantified alliance divisions against threats numbering over 175 Soviet and satellite units in 1951. This evolution prioritized empirical assessments of adversary capabilities over optimistic assumptions, ensuring plans could adapt to technological shifts like tactical nuclear integration without compromising alliance cohesion.

Post-Cold War Shifts

The 1991 Gulf War's Operation Desert Storm operational plan exemplified rapid dominance through integrated air-ground maneuvers, achieving coalition objectives in 100 hours of ground combat following a 38-day air campaign, serving as a doctrinal template for decisive conventional operations against state adversaries. However, subsequent interventions, such as the 1992-1993 U.S.-led Operation Restore Hope transitioning to UNOSOM II in , highlighted planning deficiencies against non-state actors, where initial humanitarian aims entangled forces in clan-based insurgencies, resulting in 43 U.S. fatalities including the October 1993 Battle of Mogadishu and eventual withdrawal amid escalating costs and fragmented threats. These operations underscored gaps in operation plans unprepared for , where decentralized militias exploited urban terrain and local alliances, diverging from state-on-state models and exposing vulnerabilities in and exit strategies amid globalization's diffusion of non-traditional actors. Post-9/11, U.S. military planning evolved toward adaptive frameworks, as outlined in the 2006 Joint Publication 5-0 on Joint Operation Planning, which emphasized flexible, phased approaches incorporating (COIN) elements to address irregular threats and prolonged stability operations. Yet, applications in (2003) and (2001-2021) revealed shortfalls in anticipating extended occupations; RAND assessments of Iraq's post-invasion phase critiqued insufficient prewar planning for cultural resistance and resurgence, where disbanding the Iraqi and de-Baathification fueled chaos, prolonging conflict beyond initial kinetic phases and costing over 4,400 U.S. lives by 2011. Similar oversights in underestimated tribal dynamics and safe havens, leading to 20 years of efforts that failed to consolidate governance despite $2.3 trillion expended, as adaptive plans struggled with shifting enemy tactics and host-nation dependencies. Empirical reviews of post-Cold War regime-change operations document high failure rates, with foreign-imposed changes succeeding in fostering stable, pro-intervener governments in fewer than one-third of cases since , often due to underestimation of endogenous cultural and sectarian causal factors that sustain resistance. Critiques from defense analyses argue that operation plans prioritizing expansive over limited kinetic dominance contributed to these shortfalls, as in where post-combat reconstruction absorbed resources without clear metrics for disengagement, contrasting successful limited interventions like Desert Storm. This has prompted doctrinal shifts toward victory-focused objectives, emphasizing measurable endpoints and avoidance of open-ended commitments to mitigate risks from asymmetric , where non-state networks exploit gaps.

Planning Process

Military Decision-Making Steps

The military decision-making process (MDMP) provides a structured, iterative for commanders and staffs to analyze missions, develop viable courses of action (COAs), and produce executable orders, drawing on empirical data such as intelligence assessments and terrain models to mitigate risks of overconfidence in untested assumptions. This process, formalized in U.S. , begins with receipt of mission, where the receives higher ' directives or identifies an implied task from ongoing operations, prompting initial staff alerts and fact-finding. Mission analysis follows, involving a systematic of factors under the METT-TC framework: mission (higher intent and constraints), enemy (capabilities, dispositions, and likely reactions based on order of battle data), terrain and weather (effects on mobility and visibility, verified via ), troops and support available (unit readiness and sustainment capacities from current reports), time (timelines for preparation and execution, for sequencing delays), and civil considerations (population impacts and host-nation legal frameworks to anticipate ). Outputs include a restated mission, commander's intent, and guidance, ensuring alignment with verifiable operational limits rather than optimistic projections. Subsequent steps encompass COA development, where staffs generate multiple, feasible options emphasizing surprise, mass, and ; COA analysis via wargaming, which simulates actions against enemy responses to reveal second- and third-order effects (e.g., logistical strains from extended lines or civilian disruptions amplifying insurgency risks), incorporating historical analogs like past campaign outcomes and quantitative inputs from estimates; COA comparison, ranking options by criteria such as feasibility, acceptability, and completeness using decision matrices; COA approval by the commander; and finally, orders production, translating the selected COA into directives with clear tasks, purposes, and coordination measures. In multinational contexts, adaptations to MDMP incorporate consensus-building on shared objectives through liaison exchanges and joint staff sections, while preserving national command authority to prevent veto-prone dilutions that could erode decisive action, as evidenced in operations where lead nation doctrines guide but accommodate allied caveats via predefined . This rigor counters political pressures by grounding decisions in causal chains derived from data-driven simulations, rather than unexamined alliances or expediency.

Assessment and Adaptation Mechanisms

Assessment mechanisms in emphasize continuous evaluation to track progress toward defined end states, integrated into cyclical processes such as the U.S. Department of Defense's operations process of plan, prepare, execute, and assess. This approach recognizes that operations unfold in dynamic environments where initial plans inevitably encounter deviations, requiring real-time feedback to inform adjustments rather than reliance on static blueprints. Measures of performance () focus on whether specific tasks, such as strikes or maneuvers, achieve their immediate outputs, while measures of effectiveness (MOEs) evaluate broader impacts on operational objectives, like enemy capability degradation or population stability. Adaptation doctrines incorporate branching—contingent options for unexpected developments—and sequels—follow-on phases—to mitigate the limitations of linear models. In U.S. Joint Publication 5-0 (2017), these elements allow planners to develop flexible courses of action that respond to assessed changes, such as enemy countermeasures or logistical shortfalls, thereby addressing the "fog of war" frictions that Clausewitz identified as inherent uncertainties distorting execution from intent. Rigid phased models, critiqued for underestimating these frictions, often fail to account for causal complexities like adversary or environmental variables, leading to suboptimal outcomes without iterative revision. Assessments feed into this by validating assumptions and triggering branches, as seen in campaign where progress metrics inform sequel development. Empirical evidence highlights pitfalls in assessment, where metric biases distort and perpetuate ineffective strategies. For instance, overreliance on quantifiable proxies like enemy body counts during the provided illusory progress indicators that prioritized kills over territorial control or political effects, masking underlying failures in achieving end states. analysis by Jonathan Schroden (2011) attributes many assessment breakdowns not solely to flawed metrics but to systemic issues, including in data interpretation and insufficient integration of qualitative factors, creating "failure cycles" where misassessments delay necessary adaptations. Such biases, often rooted in institutional preferences for easily tracked numbers over complex realities, underscore the need for multi-source validation to ensure assessments reflect true operational causation rather than sanitized reports.

Key Components

Strategic and Operational Elements

Strategic elements of a military operation plan establish causal linkages between objectives and anticipated outcomes by employing the ends-ways-means-risk framework, wherein ends define the desired strategic conditions, ways outline the conceptual approaches to employ forces, and means encompass the allocated resources such as personnel, , and , with explicit to ensure balance and feasibility. This coherence prevents mismatches that could undermine efficacy, as misalignment between ambitious ends and insufficient means has historically led to operational failures, such as overextension in prolonged conflicts without adequate sustainment. Theater-level prioritizes capabilities across geographic areas, directing forces to key axes while reserving reserves for contingencies, thereby optimizing national assets against enemy centers of strength. Escalation ladders within strategic planning delineate graduated response options, from signaling and limited strikes to full mobilization, to manage conflict intensity and deter adversary advances without immediate all-out commitment, rooted in controlled risk to preserve strategic initiative. Operational art translates these strategic imperatives into executable campaigns through maneuver concepts that emphasize tempo, depth, and surprise, synchronizing effects across domains including land, air, maritime, cyber, and space to disrupt enemy cohesion rather than isolated engagements. Phasing structures operations into logical sequences—such as deterrence to shape adversary calculus, domination to seize and hold initiative through decisive maneuvers, and stabilization to consolidate gains and transition to non-combat activities—ensuring progressive adaptation to evolving conditions while avoiding linear assumptions that ignore enemy countermeasures. Critical analytical tools underpin this architecture: intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) systematically evaluates mission variables—enemy dispositions, terrain effects, weather impacts, and civil factors—to forecast probable adversary courses of action and friendly vulnerabilities, enabling predictive planning over reactive measures. Complementing IPB, center of gravity analysis identifies the enemy's primary sources of power, such as leadership nodes or supply hubs, as focal points for concentrated efforts to induce collapse, per Clausewitz's conception of the "hub of all power and movement" where disrupting balance yields disproportionate results. These elements prioritize kinetic causation—direct force application backed by empirical assessment—over indirect proxies, ensuring plans derive efficacy from verifiable leverage points rather than unproven assumptions about non-material influences.

Tactical Integration and Logistics

Tactical integration within military operation plans assigns discrete tasks to units, such as maneuver, , or missions, ensuring alignment with the broader operational scheme through the commander's intent—a concise statement of the desired end state and purpose that enables disciplined initiative at lower echelons. (ROE) delineate permissible actions to balance mission accomplishment with legal and ethical constraints, integrated into task orders to prevent unintended escalation or . Fires integration synchronizes indirect fires, , and electronic warfare effects with ground movements, employing targeting processes that prioritize high-value assets while adhering to ROE and minimizing collateral risks. Logistics planning prioritizes sustainment by forecasting consumption rates derived from doctrinal profiles and historical data, such as daily ammunition expenditures of 100-200 rounds per piece in high-intensity or usage of 500-1,000 gallons per per day under maneuver conditions. These calculations inform stockpile requirements, distribution priorities, and resupply cadences to avert shortfalls that undermine tactical execution. Lines of communication (LOCs)—encompassing for rapid delivery, for , and ground convoys for forward positioning—must be mapped, protected, and phased to match operational tempo, with redundancies against disruption. Host-nation support augments these efforts by leveraging local , depots, and transportation networks, coordinated through agreements that specify contributions like airfield access or contracted trucking to reduce dependency on organic assets. Empirical analysis reveals that logistical failures, often from underestimated consumption or extended LOCs, causally precipitate operational collapse by starving units of essentials, as evidenced in campaigns where advances outpaced supply trains. Contemporary counters this via data-driven predictive models, incorporating on real-time and historical datasets to forecast demand fluctuations and optimize prepositioning. Such tools enhance resilience, enabling sustainment planners to simulate scenarios and adjust for variables like or enemy .

Variations by Organization

United States Doctrine

military doctrine for operation planning emphasizes the development of operation plans (OPLANs) as detailed frameworks for contingency responses, governed by Joint Publication (JP) 5-0, Joint Planning, which serves as the foundational document for joint force activities. OPLANs structure operations through a defining the scheme of maneuver, explicit tasks assigned to subordinate commands, and coordinating instructions for synchronization across domains, including annexes for , , and sustainment to mitigate execution risks. This approach prioritizes deliberate sequencing of phases—from shaping to stabilization—while incorporating verifiable metrics for force readiness and resource allocation to support scalable responses. Introduced in 2011, the Adaptive Planning and Execution (APEX) framework reformed OPLAN development to enable flexible, iterative processes amid dynamic threats, replacing static deliberate planning with rapid refinement cycles that integrate real-time strategic guidance from national leadership. APEX facilitates global responsiveness by allowing combatant commands to adjust plans within weeks rather than years, drawing on empirical data from post-9/11 operations to emphasize contingency branching and sequels for uncertainty. However, bureaucratic inertia has limited its efficacy, as institutional focus on procedural compliance over has hindered full adaptability, evidenced by persistent delays in force sourcing during crises like the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal. Global Force Management (GFM) integrates joint forces into OPLANs by allocating units based on quantifiable readiness indicators, such as deployability rates and equipment availability, ensuring alignment with operational demands across theaters. This process, formalized in Chairman of the Manual 3130.06, uses data-driven assessments to balance combatant command needs against global commitments, enabling empirical validation of feasibility through simulations and historical performance analogs. Doctrinal strengths lie in technology-augmented tools that presage (JADC2), such as networked command systems enhancing sensor-to-shooter linkages for decisive effects, as demonstrated in Operation Desert Storm's rapid air-ground integration yielding coalition victory in 100 hours of ground combat. Yet empirical reviews critique over-optimism in airpower-centric projections, which underestimated ground attrition in (2003–2011) and (2001–2021), where initial aerial dominance failed to prevent insurgent adaptation and prolonged engagements costing over 7,000 U.S. fatalities despite doctrinal assumptions of quick decisive outcomes. These cases reveal causal gaps in that privilege technological precision over realistic assessments of enemy resilience and logistical sustainment in attritional warfare.

NATO Framework

The Defence Planning Process (NDPP) serves as the primary framework for harmonizing national and Alliance-level defence planning, establishing capability targets, force goals, and standards to support collective defence under Article 5. Operating in four-year cycles, the NDPP identifies shortfalls and guides , with the 2025 cycle culminating in new targets agreed by Defence Ministers in June 2025, focusing on bolstering industrial capacity, production scaling, and commitments toward 5% GDP defence spending by 2035. This process addresses disparities in member states' capabilities by setting minimum standards, though political divergences in commitment levels—such as varying defence budgets and willingness to deploy forces—persist, complicating full . Doctrinal guidance for derives from the Allied Joint Publications (AJPs), with AJP-3 providing the keystone for conducting operations and AJP-01, updated in December 2022, revising principles of to emphasize decentralized execution amid the competition continuum, including deterrence against hybrid threats. For Article 5 scenarios, planning incorporates the Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive (COPD), which structures responses through phased escalation— from shaping activities to high-intensity —integrating hybrid elements like cyber and alongside conventional forces. AJP-5 further details operational-level products to align ways, means, and ends, ensuring adaptability to evolving threats while prioritizing Alliance unity. Consensus requirements among members introduce delays in plan activation and adaptation, as evidenced by 2022 responses to Russia's invasion of , where political hesitations over escalation risks and burden-sharing slowed unified threat assessments and force commitments despite doctrinal readiness. These tensions, rooted in differing national priorities and capabilities, underscore causal frictions in collective decision-making, yet standardization yields tangible benefits: exercises like Steadfast Defender 2024, involving over 90,000 personnel, demonstrated reduced interoperability gaps, streamlined command interfaces, and credible deterrence signaling across diverse national contributions. Such validations highlight the framework's efficacy in mitigating variances through repeated drills, though sustained political will remains essential for operationalizing plans in crises.

Other National Approaches

Russian military operation planning adheres to a centralized model rooted in Soviet-era concepts of "deep battle" and "active operations," which prioritize multi-echelon advances, operational depth, and integration of deception tactics known as maskirovka to achieve surprise and momentum. This approach, formalized in doctrines emphasizing strategic operations to counter enemy strikes through deflection and rapid maneuver, was evident in the February 2022 invasion of , where initial plans focused on swift of using airborne and ground forces for quick regime , achieving tactical penetrations of up to 100 kilometers in days but exposing vulnerabilities in sustainment due to overreliance on speed over secured supply lines. In contrast, the (PLA) of has pursued centralized reforms since 2015 under , transitioning from "informatized" warfare—focused on networked information superiority—to "intelligentized" warfare by 2019, which embeds , cyber capabilities, and data-driven decision-making into planning for (A2/AD) operations. These reforms restructured the PLA into theater commands optimized for joint operations, integrating non-kinetic domains like electronic warfare and space assets to disrupt adversary command-and-control in scenarios such as a contingency, with planning emphasizing preemptive system destruction and multi-domain precision strikes over prolonged ground engagements. Empirical outcomes highlight trade-offs in these centralized paradigms versus decentralized Western models: Russian planning enabled initial 2022 gains in , capturing territory equivalent to 20% of the country by September but incurring over 500,000 casualties by mid-2025 due to rigid hierarchies limiting on-the-ground adaptation, whereas PLA exercises demonstrate efficient resource allocation in simulated A2/AD scenarios but remain untested in peer combat, potentially amplifying risks from single-point command failures absent broader .

Case Studies

Notable Successes

Operation Overlord, the Allied of on June 6, 1944, exemplified a meticulously planned amphibious and airborne operation that secured critical beachheads despite fierce German resistance, enabling the eventual liberation of . The plan integrated deception operations like Fortitude to mislead German forces on invasion sites, combined with overwhelming naval and air support, resulting in approximately 156,000 troops landed by the end of D-Day across five beaches, supported by over 11,000 aircraft and 7,000 ships. This rapid establishment of lodgments— and Omaha secured by American forces, and Juno by British and Canadian, by British—facilitated a breakout by late July, with causal foresight in tide timing, weather assessment, and modular logistics chains proving decisive against fortified defenses. In the 1991 , Operation Desert Storm's ground offensive, executed under OPLAN 90-4, achieved liberation of in just 100 hours from February 24 to 28, following a 39-day air campaign that severely degraded Iraqi and fielded forces through precision strikes on command nodes, armor concentrations, and supply lines. airpower neutralized an estimated 90% of Iraq's strategic air defense capabilities and inflicted heavy attrition on ground units, with over 42,000 sorties flown, allowing ground forces—led by VII Corps' "left hook" maneuver—to envelop and shatter Iraqi divisions with minimal casualties of 147 . The plan's emphasis on phased escalation, real-time battle damage assessment via joint surveillance, and circumscribed objectives confined to Kuwait expulsion avoided entanglement in , underscoring execution dominance rooted in superior intelligence fusion from satellites and AWACS. Across these cases, notable successes stemmed from rigorous pre-operation modeling of enemy responses, deep sustainment reserves—such as Mulberry harbors for supplying 500,000 tons of monthly—and deliberate scoping to core military aims, preventing that plagued other interventions. Empirical metrics, including 's containment of initial German counterattacks via and Desert Storm's 80-90% destruction of high-value targets pre-ground assault, validate how causal anticipation of friction points like weather and yielded outsized strategic returns without indefinite occupations.

Significant Failures

The , launched by North Vietnamese and forces on January 30, 1968, exposed critical shortcomings in U.S. military planning, particularly in and anticipation of enemy capabilities. Despite achieving tactical victories—repelling attacks, inflicting over 45,000 enemy casualties, and failing to hold any significant objectives—the operation revealed an underestimation of organizational resilience and regenerative capacity, as pre-offensive dismissed large-scale coordinated assaults as improbable. This planning gap, rooted in overreliance on body-count metrics and dismissal of fusion between tactical indicators and strategic intent, amplified media portrayals of vulnerability, eroding domestic support and prompting President to halt bombing campaigns and decline re-election, effectively collapsing U.S. escalation policy by March 1968. In the , initial post-invasion planning failures manifested in Order No. 1 on May 16, 2003, which implemented sweeping de-Baathification, purging approximately 50,000 to 100,000 mid- and upper-level members from government and military roles without adequate vetting or reintegration mechanisms. This policy, intended to dismantle Saddam Hussein's regime structure, ignored foreseeable causal power vacuums by disbanding the Iraqi army and alienating Sunni elites, fostering widespread unemployment among former soldiers—estimated at 400,000—and enabling insurgent recruitment that escalated violence, with monthly coalition deaths rising from 43 in late 2003 to peaks exceeding 100 by 2004. Subsequent critiques, including those from the 2007 Surge strategy's architects, highlighted how undefined end-states for stabilization compounded these frictions, as initial plans prioritized rapid over second-order effects like sectarian fragmentation, prolonging instability until the 2007 troop increase partially mitigated but did not originate from rectified foundational assumptions. Broader data on U.S. interventions underscores how tactical proficiency often masks deficits from ambiguous objectives and overlooked instabilities: a RAND analysis of 145 post- cases found political goals achieved in about 63% of instances where interventions occurred, yet frequent divergences arose when plans neglected host-nation or exit criteria, as in and , where immediate combat successes (e.g., regime toppling in 21 days for in ) yielded protracted conflicts due to unaddressed societal frictions. These cases illustrate planning's limits when assuming linear progression from kinetic operations to enduring stability, without integrating empirical forecasts of adversary adaptation or domestic political constraints.

Criticisms and Challenges

Theoretical Limitations

Military operation plans often embody an assumption of linear causality, positing that sequenced actions will culminate in precisely defined end-states, yet this framework disregards the nonlinear dynamics of warfare, where minor variables can amplify into profound disruptions akin to chaos theory's sensitivity to initial conditions. Such doctrinal constructs, rooted in rationalist planning paradigms, fail to account for emergent behaviors in complex adaptive systems, leading to overconfidence in predictive models that crumble under real-world friction. Efforts to mitigate this through adaptive planning have encountered inherent theoretical shortcomings, as evidenced by post-2003 U.S. initiatives that promised agility but devolved due to entrenched procedural rigidities and flawed assumptions about scalable foresight, ultimately reinforcing rather than transcending deterministic pitfalls. These approaches, while aiming to incorporate feedback loops, inadvertently prioritize procedural compliance over genuine responsiveness to volatility. A pervasive bias toward quantifiable metrics further undermines theoretical soundness, as planners grapple with —limited by incomplete information and cognitive heuristics—that fosters loops, wherein assessments selectively validate preconceived narratives rather than confronting evidentiary contradictions. This metric-driven orientation, while providing illusory precision, supplants qualitative judgment essential for navigating , debunking the notion of planning as an infallible antidote to uncertainty. While structured planning offers a scaffold for coordinating efforts in opaque environments, its theoretical excesses can constrain human agency, as doctrine posits that prescriptive detailing erodes decentralized execution and initiative, favoring instead commander's intent to enable contextual adaptation over rote adherence. Advocates of this philosophy argue it counters planning's tendency to homogenize responses, preserving the judgment required to exploit fleeting opportunities amid chaos.

Practical Pitfalls and Real-World Deviations

In practice, plans often unravel due to Clausewitzian , encompassing unpredictable delays from incomplete , human error, and physical constraints that transform theoretical timelines into protracted struggles. During Napoleon's 1812 invasion of Russia, for example, planners underestimated forage consumption rates for horses and troops while overestimating local resources, leading to critical supply breakdowns as Russian scorched-earth tactics depleted available and across vast distances; environmental factors such as muddy and early frosts further slowed wagon trains, deviating from the original intent of a swift decisive battle near the Polish frontier and contributing to over 400,000 non-combat losses from starvation and exposure by retreat. Analogous execution gaps appeared in , initiated on June 22, 1941, where German pre-invasion intelligence inaccurately projected 150 Soviet divisions against actual equivalents exceeding 800, fostering overconfidence that ignored logistical warnings like chronic truck shortages and incompatible Soviet rail gauges requiring on-site reconstruction. By August 1941, Army Group Center had lost 25% of its truck fleet and 39% due to overuse on unpaved roads and mechanical failures, compelling unplanned pauses and resource reallocations amid adversarial reserves that exhausted initial German margins by November. Political overlays compound these deviations by subordinating operational logic to extraneous mandates, particularly in regime-change endeavors where directives for rapid stabilization or humanitarian relief constrain maneuver and extend commitments. Analyses of U.S.-led foreign-imposed regime changes reveal succeeding in only about 25% of cases, with failures frequently traced to new s prioritizing parochial interests over intervener objectives, triggering in roughly 40% of instances within a decade and necessitating indefinite occupations that erode military focus. Post-mortems from these and similar operations underscore adversarial innovations—like or rapid mobilization—as amplifiers of fog-of-war effects, alongside human elements such as command fatigue and morale erosion that prompt adjustments over scripted sequences. While advocates for doctrinal flexibility contend such deviations reflect adaptive resilience against inherent uncertainties, evidenced in after-action critiques emphasizing initiative, skeptics highlight verifiable lapses in and preparation, as seen in training center evaluations where initial plans falter under simulated from terrain and opposition countermeasures.

Modern Developments

Technological and Doctrinal Advances

Since 2023, the U.S. Department of Defense has piloted (JADC2) initiatives integrating for scenario simulation and in operation planning, enabling fusion across air, land, sea, space, and cyber domains to enhance speed. Complementary AI-driven wargaming tools, such as those explored in the Air Force's 2025 requests for proposals and the Defense Unit's Thunderforge project, automate course-of-action generation and adversary modeling, drawing on historical data and to refine predictive models for contested environments. Doctrinal evolution has emphasized multidomain integration post-2010, with the U.S. Army's Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) framework—updated in Field Manual 3-0 in March 2025—explicitly incorporating and the to synchronize effects in high-intensity conflicts against peer adversaries. NATO's parallel multidomain operations concept, formalized for full-time application beyond wartime, prioritizes orchestration across domains with 2025 conference emphases on achieving alliance-wide enablement by 2030, including cyber-electromagnetic activities to counter hybrid threats. These advances have demonstrably shortened planning cycles in exercises, with generative AI tools compressing wargame preparation from months to days by automating mission analysis and , as evidenced in joint simulations integrating AI into the Military Decision-Making Process. However, DoD assessments highlight risks of over-reliance, including AI brittleness to adversarial data poisoning and heightened cyber vulnerabilities that could compromise networked planning systems in electromagnetic-contested scenarios.

Implications for Great-Power Competition

Military operation planning in the era of great-power competition emphasizes preparation for high-intensity peer conflicts against adversaries like and , where anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities pose severe challenges to force projection. strategies, such as the Navy's distributed lethality concept introduced in 2015, seek to counter these threats by dispersing naval assets to complicate enemy targeting and enhance survivability in contested environments, particularly in the theater. This approach aligns with the 2015 rebalance to , which repositioned U.S. forces toward the Pacific, bolstering alliances with , , and others to deter aggression through forward presence and joint exercises rather than reactive deployments. Effective prioritizes attrition-based modeling that accounts for sustained high-end warfare, including defenses against hypersonic weapons, over protracted low-intensity counterinsurgencies that dilute resources and erode readiness for peer confrontations. U.S. 2025 defense budgets allocate over $3.9 billion for hypersonic munitions and defenses, reflecting targets for integrated systems to counter peer capabilities like China's missiles, which demand resilient beyond legacy templates. Analyses of great-power scenarios underscore the need to evaluate alliance resolve realistically, as commitments may falter under attrition rates exceeding 10-20% in simulated conflicts, necessitating plans that distribute risks across coalitions rather than assuming indefinite unity. Observations from the Russia-Ukraine war since 2022 highlight the imperative for adaptive command-and-control (C2) structures resilient to electronic warfare jamming, where rigid plans fail against dynamic threats like GPS denial and drone swarms. Ukrainian forces demonstrated rapid iteration in C2 systems, such as the Delta platform, enabling fusion amid disruptions that degraded Russian operations, validating the shift toward flexible, decentralized planning over static doctrines in peer environments. This empirical evidence reinforces that great-power plans must incorporate iterative testing and allied to maintain coherence under jamming and attrition, prioritizing causal factors like sustainment over optimistic assumptions of technological .

References

  1. https://www.airforcespecialtactics.af.mil/Portals/80/prototype/assets/joint-pub-jpub-5-0-joint-planning.pdf
  2. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/dod/jp5_0.pdf
  3. https://www.jcs.mil/Doctrine/DOCNET/JP-5-0-Joint-Planning/
  4. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan.htm
  5. https://www.militaryfactory.com/dictionary/military-terms-defined.php?term_id=3897
  6. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/November-December-2021/Harvey-Levels-of-War/
  7. https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/war-plan/
  8. https://www.dau.edu/acquipedia-article/concept-operations-conops
  9. https://www.jcs.mil/doctrine/joint-doctrine-pubs/3-0-operations-series/
  10. https://thesimonscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/IAJ-8-3-2017-pg78-86.pdf
  11. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3062.html
  12. https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2023/3/16/the-fallacy-of-the-short-sharp-war-optimism-bias-and-the-abuse-of-history
  13. https://smallwarsjournal.com/2021/09/13/losing-small-wars-why-us-military-culture-leads-defeat/
  14. https://jfsc.ndu.edu/portals/72/documents/jc2ios/additional_reading/1c3-jp_3-13-4_mildec.pdf
  15. http://www.legioxxirapax.com/zasoby/The_Logistics_of_the_Roman_Army_at_War_%28264BC_-_235AD%29.pdf
  16. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:c6e9112/s4391543_masters_thesis.pdf?dsi_version=4d298f797807e29185b5ecb82cbd3493
  17. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1022125.pdf
  18. https://warandsecurity.com/2013/02/11/why-napoleons-1812-russian-campaign-failed/
  19. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA218326.pdf
  20. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA207264.pdf
  21. https://edspace.american.edu/mapping-the-impressionist-imprint/socio-historical/road-to-the-franco-prussian-war/
  22. https://www.jbcharleston.jb.mil/News/Commentaries/Display/Article/237541/learning-from-the-past-interwar-period/
  23. https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/military-lessons-of-the-first-world-war/
  24. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1160006.pdf
  25. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D114-PURL-gpo106140/pdf/GOVPUB-D114-PURL-gpo106140.pdf
  26. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1941/prelude.html
  27. https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1944/overlord/overlord-planning.html
  28. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/planning-d-day-preparing-operation-overlord
  29. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2017/12/axis-powers-miscalculated-early-advantages-wwii-stanford-scholar-says
  30. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/secretaryofdefense/OSDSeries_Vol1.pdf?ver=2014-05-28-130015-717
  31. https://www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/intro.pdf
  32. https://www.nato.int/cps/ru/natohq/declassified_138298.htm
  33. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/135945.htm
  34. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA401682.pdf
  35. https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/314322.pdf
  36. https://archive.smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/somalia-20-years-later-%25E2%2580%2593-lessons-learned-re-learned-and-forgotten
  37. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Books/B_0129_REILLY_OPERATIONAL_DESIGN.pdf
  38. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG642.pdf
  39. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3076/RAND_RR3076.pdf
  40. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2020-01/PA-883-updated.pdf
  41. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/iraq-without-a-plan/
  42. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=monographs
  43. https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2023/11/17/f7177a3c/23-07-594-military-decision-making-process-nov-23-public.pdf
  44. https://www.armyuniversity.edu/cgsc/cgss/files/15-06_0.pdf
  45. https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2023/01/31/bf65892d/20-06-how-to-master-wargaming-public.pdf
  46. https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2023/01/31/3dadfaa2/20-12.pdf
  47. http://militarycaveats.com/7-the-fundamental-principle-of-unity-of-effort-in-multinational-operations/
  48. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pams_hands/assessment_hbk.pdf
  49. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA609967.pdf
  50. http://www.cimic-coe.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/8.4.15.-measures-of-performance-and-measures-of-effectiveness.pdf
  51. https://warontherocks.com/2016/01/living-with-fog-and-friction-the-fallacy-of-information-superiority/
  52. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/fp/design_and_planning_fp.pdf
  53. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol64/iss4/8/
  54. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1555&context=nwc-review
  55. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20071031_art009.pdf
  56. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/MR-75th-Anniversary/75th-Lykke/
  57. https://www.jcs.mil/Doctrine/DOCNET/JP-3-0-Joint-Operations/
  58. https://warontherocks.com/2016/10/american-strategy-and-the-six-phases-of-grief/
  59. https://home.army.mil/wood/application/files/8915/5751/8365/ATP_2-01.3_Intelligence_Preparation_of_the_Battlefield.pdf
  60. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20070831_art012.pdf
  61. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA392585.pdf
  62. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/fp/int_and_sync_jointfires.pdf?ver=2018-09-18-102801-350
  63. https://alu.army.mil/alog/2016/NOVDEC16/PDF/176881.pdf
  64. https://www.army.mil/article/223842/how_data_analytics_will_improve_logistics_planning
  65. https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_4-0/4-0-D11-CS-LOCs.pdf
  66. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_61741.htm
  67. https://www.army.mil/article/270892/predictive_logistics_in_data_driven_sustainment
  68. https://www.army.mil/article/282486/predictive_logistics_reimagining_sustainment_on_the_2040_battlefield
  69. https://www.jcs.mil/Doctrine/Joint-Doctrine-Pubs/5-0-Planning-Series/
  70. https://www.army.mil/article/287596/all_according_to_plan
  71. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Volume-26_Issue-2/Price.pdf
  72. https://www.thelightningpress.com/global-force-management-gfm/
  73. https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.pdf
  74. https://warontherocks.com/2020/09/bending-the-principle-of-mass-why-that-approach-no-longer-works-for-airpower/
  75. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-78/jfq-78_111-124_Clodfelter.pdf
  76. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49202.htm
  77. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49137.htm
  78. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_236518.htm
  79. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/why-natos-defence-planning-process-will-transform-the-alliance-for-decades-to-come/
  80. https://www.coemed.org/files/stanags/01_AJP/AJP-01_EDF_V1_E_%281%29_2437.pdf
  81. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68b84313536d629f9c82aa29/AJP-3_Ed_D_V1-O.pdf
  82. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c9115e5ed915d07a4a4651b/archive_doctrine_nato_op_planning_ajp_5_with_UK_elements.pdf
  83. https://www.coemed.org/files/stanags/01_AJP/AJP-5_EDA_V2_E_2526.pdf
  84. https://cepa.org/article/ukraine-and-nato-bridging-the-gap-between-war-and-accession/
  85. https://www.cfr.org/report/ukraine-nato-and-war-termination
  86. https://www.act.nato.int/article/steadfast-defender-2024-signals-alliance-unity-and-preparedness/
  87. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/222847.htm
  88. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/CTA2600/CTA2646-1/RAND_CTA2646-1.pdf
  89. https://g2webcontent.z2.web.core.usgovcloudapi.net/OEE/Russia%2520Landing%2520Zone/An-Assessment-of-the-Initial-Period-of-War-Russia-Ukraine-2022-Part-I_AUG22.pdf
  90. https://jamestown.org/program/allied-resolve-2022-moscows-maskirovka-operation/
  91. https://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/security/pdf/2022/01/05.pdf
  92. https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF
  93. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/January-February-2024/Sullivan/
  94. https://www.fpri.org/article/2023/03/the-roots-of-russian-military-dysfunction/
  95. https://oe.tradoc.army.mil/product/differences-in-russian-military-planning-underscore-importance-of-thinking-red/
  96. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/643350/a-look-back-at-desert-storm-25-years-later/
  97. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA327762.pdf
  98. https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-97-134.pdf
  99. https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/21/2001309604/-1/-1/0/AFD-100921-022.pdf
  100. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Books/Browse-Books/iBooks-and-EPUBs/Deception-in-the-Desert/
  101. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA416144.pdf
  102. https://www.fpri.org/article/2012/05/tet-1968-the-turning-point/
  103. https://dpaa-mil.sites.crmforce.mil/dpaaFamWebInTetOffensive
  104. https://journals.library.cornell.edu/tmpfiles/CIAR_9_2_2.pdf
  105. https://warontherocks.com/2015/09/why-america-is-tactically-terrific-but-strategically-slipshod/
  106. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1042004.pdf
  107. https://clausewitzstudies.org/readings/TMHolmes.pdf
  108. http://armedforcesjournal.com/the-psychology-of-operational-planning/
  109. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20101031_art008.pdf
  110. https://www.army.mil/article/106872/understanding_mission_command
  111. https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_1-1/AFDP%25201-1%2520Mission%2520Command.pdf
  112. https://wavellroom.com/2025/02/26/failing-at-echelon-napoleon-in-the-1812-russia-campaign/
  113. http://militaryhistoryvisualized.com/operation-barbarossa-the-major-errors-and-blunders/
  114. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/more-things-change-more-they-stay-same-failure-regime-change-operations
  115. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24480621
  116. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA273273.pdf
  117. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105495.pdf
  118. https://defensescoop.com/2025/08/13/air-force-wargaming-ai-saas-platform-rfi/
  119. https://www.diu.mil/latest/dius-thunderforge-project-to-integrate-commercial-ai-powered-decision-making
  120. https://www.army.mil/article/287178/from_concept_to_combat_landeuro_spotlights_multi_domain_readiness
  121. https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2021/07/08/fbd7fb76/20210629-afc-pam-71-20-8-cyberspace-and-electromagnetic-warfare-operations-approved.pdf
  122. https://www.act.nato.int/article/mdo-dt-enabling-converging-effects/
  123. https://c2coe.org/mdo-conference-2025-ankara-turkiye/
  124. https://www.jhuapl.edu/news/news-releases/250303-generative-wargaming
  125. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2025-OLE/Modernizing-Military-Decision-Making/
  126. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1722-5.html
  127. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/data-poisoning-covert-weapon-securing-us-military-superiority-ai-driven-warfare/
  128. https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/chinas-big-plan-to-sink-u-s-navy-aircraft-carriers-comes-down-to-4-words/
  129. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/SSQ/documents/Volume-13_Issue-4/Moore.pdf
  130. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/11/16/fact-sheet-advancing-rebalance-asia-and-pacific
  131. https://www.jcs.mil/portals/36/documents/publications/2015_national_military_strategy.pdf
  132. https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/7/22/us-looks-to-field-its-first-hypersonic-weapon-reenergize-efforts
  133. https://news.usni.org/2025/09/01/report-to-congress-on-hypersonic-weapons-21
  134. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3332&context=parameters
  135. https://claws.co.in/russia-ukraine-war-lessons-from-an-electronic-warfare-ew-perspective/
  136. https://www.csis.org/analysis/does-ukraine-already-have-functional-cjadc2-technology
  137. https://www.csis.org/analysis/lessons-ukraine-conflict-modern-warfare-age-autonomy-information-and-resilience
  138. https://www.orfonline.org/research/russia-s-wartime-adaptation-against-ukraine
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.