The Indo-Pacific Rehearsal: Balikatan, the First Island Chain & the West Philippine Sea

The Indo-Pacific region is entering a phase of steady readiness and structured coordination. Balikatan, a joint military exercise led by the United States and the Philippines, now functions as a peaceful and practical rehearsal for regional stability. With participation from Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, the exercise reflects a unified approach to maritime challenges in the Taiwan Strait and the West Philippine Sea. Joint planning, legal cooperation, and advanced defense systems indicate a calm but deliberate transition toward sustained preparedness.

Strategic Significance of the First Island Chain

The First Island Chain is a geographic arc that begins in Japan, passes through Taiwan, and extends through the Philippines. It serves as a natural boundary that supports surveillance, early warning, and access management across the Pacific. Luzon and Palawan are central to this chain. Securing this position enhances regional coordination, while losing it may reduce operational flexibility and limit collective response capability.

Balikatan and Regional Coordination

Balikatan 2025 includes approximately 16,700 troops, with about 11,000 from the United States and 5,000 from the Philippines. Australia contributes between 150 and 260 personnel, and Japan provides 100 to 150 troops. The United Kingdom, Canada, and France are also participating, although their exact contributions have not been publicly disclosed. For the first time, parts of the exercise extend beyond Philippine territorial waters into areas of strategic concern.

Key operational scenarios include:

• Island retaking exercises in designated training zones
• Joint missile defense and coastal protection drills
• Simulated Sink an Enemy Ship operations (SynEx), designed to test live combat decision-making
• Coordinated navigation through contested maritime corridors

These scenarios reflect real-world contingency planning. They are intended to prepare for potential security risks rather than serve as symbolic gestures.

Persistent Defense Systems and Deterrence

Several advanced systems deployed during Balikatan remain active beyond the exercise:

• Typhon: A mobile missile launcher with a range of up to 2,000 kilometers
• NEMESIS: A ship interdiction system engineered for narrow sea channels
• M-AADIS: A low-altitude air defense system designed to counter drones and small aerial threats
• Leonidas: A microwave-based, non-explosive system that disables drone swarms

Together, these platforms form a cohesive and layered defense network that strengthens maritime protection across the Indo-Pacific and establishes a firm foundation for managing regional tensions. Building on this capability, strategic attention now turns to one of the region’s most contested maritime domains.

The West Philippine Sea as a Strategic Pressure Point

The West Philippine Sea lies within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone, as upheld by the 2016 international arbitration ruling. Despite this legal clarity, overlapping claims persist. China continues to assert its influence through gray-zone tactics that operate below the threshold of armed conflict.

These include:

• Underwater surveillance and intelligence-gathering
• Use of water cannons during maritime standoffs
• Civilian vessels deployed as informal patrols
• Flag placement on maritime features such as Sandy Cay
• Media campaigns designed to shape public and diplomatic perception

These actions increase tension while avoiding open confrontation. They gradually challenge existing norms and maritime boundaries without crossing into declared conflict.

Taiwan and Operational Planning

Taiwan is located just north of Luzon, placing the Philippines in a vital position. If tensions rise, the Philippines may help manage access to key maritime routes such as the Bashi Channel and the Luzon Strait. The years leading up to 2027, often referred to as the Davidson Window, are considered a period of elevated risk. Balikatan 2025 aligns with this timeline and demonstrates coordinated readiness without escalation.

Philippine-Led Modernization and Sovereignty

The Philippines is leading its own defense modernization effort. It has requested platforms such as Typhon and NEMESIS, is acquiring twenty F-16 fighter jets, and is expanding radar and surveillance infrastructure. These choices reflect a clear strategic shift from internal security to maritime defense, anchored in sovereign planning and supported by international cooperation.

China’s Multilayered Response

China has responded with measured actions that include:

• Increased naval and coast guard patrols
• Official statements portraying Balikatan as a destabilizing exercise
• Symbolic flag placements in disputed areas
• Surveillance and monitoring of overseas critics and diaspora groups
• Protests against global map updates that reflect Philippine claims

These actions aim to influence global perception while avoiding direct military engagement. They are part of a wider strategy to project control without overt escalation.

Symbolic Geography and Strategic Naming

Geopolitical influence now includes digital and symbolic domains. Satellite imagery, map labeling, and legal designations all shape perception. Google’s decision to label areas of the South China Sea as the “West Philippine Sea” reinforced the Philippines’ lawful maritime claims. These symbolic acts support digital diplomacy and help strengthen norms aligned with international law.

From Exercise to Enduring Presence

Balikatan has transformed from a periodic drill into an enduring component of regional security architecture:

• Defense systems remain deployed beyond the training window
• Drone surveillance continues across sensitive maritime routes
• Training teams operate as integrated force elements
• Legal and symbolic frameworks support a rules-based maritime order

These developments signal a durable and reliable presence. The Philippines is now positioned as a central coordination hub for allied operations in the Indo-Pacific.

Conclusion

The Indo-Pacific Rehearsal is more than an exercise. It represents a structured evolution in collective defense, regional sovereignty, and maritime stability. Balikatan 2025 marks the transition from preparation to posture, from cooperation to capability. With advanced systems in place and international partnerships deepening, the Philippines stands as a stabilizing force at the heart of the region’s future. This integrated approach not only strengthens Indo-Pacific security but also sets a global benchmark for peaceful deterrence, lawful access, and cooperative maritime defense.

Maritime Warfare Lessons & the Evolution of Anti-Access Area Denial

Maritime warfare has shifted from traditional fleet-on-fleet battles into a dynamic, multi-domain environment shaped by land-based missile threats, unmanned systems, cyber operations, and subtle gray-zone tactics. The Falklands War in 1982 demonstrated that even technologically advanced navies could be vulnerable to land-launched missiles, forcing rapid changes in naval tactics. Modern joint operations against the Houthis in Yemen illustrate how these threats have expanded across all operational domains. Understanding the evolution from conventional naval battles to complex Anti-Access and Area Denial (A2/AD) strategies is essential for protecting global trade routes, maintaining regional stability, and preparing for future conflict environments shaped by persistent contestation across air, land, sea, cyberspace, space, and the information domain.

Foundations of Maritime Anti-Access and Area Denial

Historical Context: Lessons from the Falklands War

The Falklands War revealed a critical shift in maritime warfare:

• British forces, despite superior ships and aircraft, suffered losses from Argentine Exocet missiles launched from aircraft and coastal systems.
• The sinking of HMS Sheffield exposed vulnerabilities to land-originated missile threats.
• British operations adapted rapidly through dispersal of forces, improved defensive postures, and improvised responses.
• The conflict demonstrated that maritime dominance requires constant vigilance against asymmetric land-based strikes.

Defining Anti-Access and Area Denial

Anti-Access and Area Denial strategies involve:

• Preventing adversaries from entering contested regions (anti-access).
• Restricting adversary freedom of movement once inside (area denial).

Layered defenses include:

• Long-range ballistic and cruise missiles targeting naval and air assets.
• Integrated air defense networks detecting and intercepting threats.
• Electronic warfare systems jamming communications, radar, and navigation.
• Cyber operations disrupting command and control networks.
• Unmanned aerial, surface, and underwater systems for surveillance and attack.
• Naval mines blocking or threatening critical sea lanes.

Evolution of A2/AD After the Falklands War

Following the Falklands conflict:

• Global military investments prioritized missile, air defense, and electronic warfare capabilities.
• The Gulf War of 1991 demonstrated U.S. precision strike dominance, prompting rivals to seek denial-based countermeasures.
• China built missile shields along the First Island Chain, covering approaches to the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea.
• Russia deployed layered defenses around Kaliningrad and Crimea to constrain NATO operations.
• Non-state actors, including the Houthis, adapted low-cost A2/AD strategies using drones, missiles, and mines to challenge maritime movements.

Modern Case Study: Joint Operations Against the Houthis

Emergence of Houthi A2/AD Tactics

Since 2015, the Houthis have operationalized Anti-Access and Area Denial strategies in the Red Sea:

• Expanded attacks from Israeli-linked vessels to U.S., British, and commercial shipping.
• Employed ballistic missiles, armed drones, naval mines, and uncrewed surface vessels.
• Forced global shipping companies to reroute, raising maritime risks and operational costs.

Coalition Response and Operational Complexity

In response, U.S. and allied forces launched Operation Prosperity Guardian:

• Naval escorts for commercial shipping.
• Missile and drone interceptions.
• Precision airstrikes against launch sites and command infrastructure.

Coalition success depended on:

• Rapid intelligence fusion.
• Political synchronization.
• Escalation control across forces with diverse doctrines and legal frameworks.

Strategic Importance of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait connects:

• The Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea.
• Serving as a vital chokepoint between Europe, Asia, and Africa.

Approximately 12 percent of global trade passes through this corridor. Disruptions impact:

• Global shipping insurance premiums.
• Delivery routes and costs.
• Strategic pressure across multiple regions.

Broader Trends in Maritime Anti-Access and Area Denial

Several trends continue to reshape maritime conflict:

• Non-state actors now adopt techniques once reserved for state militaries.
• Proliferation of drones, cyber weapons, and low-cost precision-guided munitions.
• Conflicts expanding into cyberspace, space, and the information domain.
• Gray-zone tactics using harassment and ambiguity without triggering full-scale war.

Future operations must address persistent competition across all domains simultaneously.

Responses and Adaptations by U.S. and Allied Forces

To meet these challenges, adaptations include:

• Distributed Maritime Operations: Small, flexible groups complicating enemy targeting and enhancing survivability.
• Stealth and Survivability Investments: Platforms such as the F-35 and unmanned naval systems reducing exposure to attacks.
• Long-Range Precision Strike Capabilities: Hypersonic weapons neutralizing threats from beyond denial zones.
• Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2): Integrated decision networks linking land, sea, air, space, and cyber forces.
• Legal and Diplomatic Reinforcement: Upholding maritime rights through international frameworks such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Strategic Lessons for Future Maritime Conflict

Key lessons for future conflict environments:

• Contested environments must be the assumed baseline for all operational planning.
• Neutralizing land-based missile threats early is critical for maintaining maritime superiority.
• Coalition operations must be legally resilient, politically legitimate, and operationally interoperable.
• Countering gray-zone tactics requires integrated military, cyber, legal, diplomatic, and informational strategies.
• Strategic competition will involve layered denial systems and information manipulation to shift balances without overt escalation.

Conclusion

The transformation of maritime warfare from the Falklands War to the Red Sea operations reveals the growing dominance of Anti-Access and Area Denial strategies in modern conflict. Success in future maritime environments will depend on flexible force structures, resilient multinational coalitions, legal and political legitimacy, and seamless multi-domain integration. Those who may adapt faster, think sharper, and synchronize operations across air, land, sea, cyber, space, and the information domain will define the future of maritime security and preserve freedom of navigation in an increasingly contested global order.

The Logic of Modern Warfare: Speed, Coordination, & Decisive Action

Modern warfare shifted from slow, grinding battles to fast, coordinated operations designed to achieve clear, lasting effects. This evolution was driven by the need to move rapidly, remain organized across complex forces, and act with purpose. Speed without coordination leads to confusion. Coordination without action leads to delay. When integrated, these three elements—speed, coordination, and decisive action—form the logic that transforms military force into meaningful outcome.

The Problem with Earlier Wars

By the late 1800s and early 1900s, armies had become too large and complex to control efficiently. Railroads, telegraphs, and mass mobilization expanded operational scale but reduced flexibility. World War I exposed these limits. Commanders issued detailed plans, yet battlefield conditions changed faster than orders could arrive. Trenches, machine guns, and artillery made maneuver deadly. Victories were rare and came at overwhelming cost. Leaders lacked real-time awareness and struggled to manage dispersed forces. Operational momentum was nearly impossible to sustain.

The German Breakthrough

Between 1919 and 1939, the German military developed a new operational logic. Studying past failures, they reimagined warfare around movement, initiative, and decentralized command. By combining maneuver warfare with emerging tools—radios, tanks, and aircraft—they built a system known as Bewegungskrieg, or “war of movement.” It was not about technology alone. It was about using mobility, tempo, and intent-based orders to overwhelm and outpace the enemy before organized resistance could form.

Radio and Real-Time Command

The introduction of radio transformed command and control. It replaced messengers and wires with voice communication, allowing orders to adapt mid-battle. A 1932 German exercise revealed how radios enhanced operational flexibility:

• Radios had to be present in every vehicle, from motorcycles to tanks.
• Messages had to be brief, clear, and quickly transmitted.
• Operators needed to fully understand the mission’s intent.

This enabled entire formations to maneuver as unified, responsive systems with shared understanding and real-time adaptability.

Combining Speed with Coordination

The German campaigns in Poland (1939) and France (1940) demonstrated the power of combining rapid movement with aligned objectives. Tanks bypassed strongpoints, aircraft disrupted logistics and communications, and radios synchronized dispersed units. Officers were empowered to act on intent without waiting for specific instructions.

Key features included:

• Orders focused on commander’s intent, not micromanagement.
• Units advanced in parallel across multiple axes toward shared effects.
• Initiative was delegated across all levels to maintain tempo and pressure.

This resulted in deep thrusts, rapid encirclements, and the breakdown of enemy cohesion before defenses could form.

Why It Changed Warfare Forever

This operational logic reshaped global doctrine. U.S. concepts like AirLand Battle adopted similar principles: speed, initiative, and joint coordination. Today’s multidomain operations apply the same logic to cyber, space, and electromagnetic warfare. Speed now includes not just physical movement, but the velocity of sensing, deciding, and acting.

Recent conflicts reinforce this shift. In Ukraine, the integration of drones, precision fires, and real-time data has allowed agile forces to outmaneuver larger ones. In the Red Sea, coalition navies use distributed sensors, fast communications, and synchronized response to defend critical maritime routes from asymmetric threats. These examples show how combining speed with coordination remains decisive—even in complex, contested environments.

Planning at the Operational Level

Modern warfare is guided by a level of planning that bridges tactical engagements and strategic objectives. This is the operational level, where decisions are made to shape campaigns, not just battles. It involves:

• Selecting objectives that shift the trajectory of conflict.
• Integrating land, air, sea, cyber, and space operations.
• Sequencing actions so that each supports a broader operational effect.

The German military institutionalized this mindset through officer education, map exercises, and campaign wargames. Their goal was not just to fight—but to plan with foresight, agility, and effect.

Information as a Weapon

Timely, accurate information became a weapon in its own right. The ability to see, interpret, and act faster than the adversary delivered operational advantage. What began with aerial photography evolved into satellite imagery, persistent surveillance, and AI-assisted targeting. Today, the flow of information defines tempo.

Modern operations depend on:

• Continuous battlefield awareness.
• Secure, distributed command and control.
• Fast integration of intelligence into operational decisions.

When information is clear and timely, coordination accelerates. When disrupted, even superior forces may falter.

The Principle of Decisive Action

Decisive action means more than winning engagements. It means ending the conflict—or breaking the opponent’s ability to fight. It involves disrupting systems, collapsing leadership, or paralyzing movement. In practice, this may include:

• Rapid, multidomain strikes.
• Isolation of enemy forces or leadership nodes.
• Use of tempo and surprise to cause systemic failure.

Historical examples include the collapse of France in 1940, where German forces bypassed resistance and struck deep, and the 2003 campaign in Baghdad, where armored columns and precision airpower shattered command structures before organized resistance could mount.

The Lesson from Doctrine and History

Germany’s success was not due to sheer numbers or advanced machines. It came from disciplined doctrine, mission clarity, and synchronized movement. Even under treaty restrictions, they trained for scale, adaptability, and operational vision. Other nations studied and adopted these ideas because they worked. The true power lay not in the tools—but in the system: intent-driven command, flexible execution, and decisive tempo.

Conclusion

Modern warfare runs on speed, coordination, and decisive action working in concert. This logic—refined through experience and proven in past and present campaigns—continues to guide how forces plan and fight. Whether through networks, maneuver, or multidomain integration, the principle remains the same: win the tempo, control the space, and strike with clarity. Understanding this logic is essential not only for grasping the past—but for shaping the future of conflict itself.

United States Air Force Special Operations School: Doctrine, Strategy, & Combat Readiness

The United States Air Force Special Operations School (USAFSOS), located at Hurlburt Field, Florida, is a vital training center for Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC). The school educates military personnel, government officials, and allied partners, preparing them to perform in complex environments where traditional combat may not be suitable. It focuses on teaching military doctrine, strategy, and readiness for missions such as irregular warfare, influence operations, and special operations. USAFSOS helps forces operate in regions with sensitive political situations, against adversaries using non-traditional tactics, and in environments where success may depend on precision, adaptability, and cultural understanding.

Mission and Foundational Purpose

USAFSOS trains individuals to understand and apply military doctrine, which is a set of rules guiding military actions. It focuses on missions that are not part of conventional combat, such as unconventional warfare, information warfare, and working with local governments and military forces. The education provided by the school helps students make effective decisions in situations that are uncertain or unstable.

Key doctrinal areas include:

• Irregular warfare: Operations in areas that are not controlled by traditional military forces
• Psychological and information operations: Using information to influence and control perceptions
• Coordination with U.S. agencies and international forces: Working together to achieve mission goals
• Airpower support: Using air forces to support ground operations in special missions
• Foreign internal defense (FID): Helping other nations strengthen their military forces

This training prepares personnel to align military actions with broader strategic and national goals.

Strategic Learning Areas

USAFSOS trains its students to think strategically and prepare for unpredictable conflicts. This training includes studying enemy behavior, understanding different cultures, and adapting tactics to meet national interests. Students also learn how to plan missions that influence public opinion, local politics, and online spaces, rather than relying solely on combat.

Key strategic themes include:

• Countering state and non-state adversaries: Dealing with both national military forces and smaller groups like insurgents or terrorists
• Special operations in contested regions: Working in areas with limited access or in conflicts involving irregular tactics
• Influence in the information domain: Using information and media to shape perceptions
• Balancing military, cultural, and political factors: Understanding the cultural and political context of conflicts
• Adapting airpower: Using air support in situations where access to traditional military action is limited

These strategies are especially useful in confronting threats like terrorist organizations, insurgencies, and peer competitors like China and Russia.

Core Curriculum and Educational Tracks

USAFSOS offers a mix of core and specialized courses designed to prepare students for real-world missions. These programs are constantly updated to reflect the current global situation.

Core areas include:

• Irregular Warfare: Tactics used in unconventional conflicts, such as guerrilla warfare
• Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency: Understanding and responding to terrorist tactics and insurgencies
• Information and Psychological Operations: Managing influence and perception during conflicts
• Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies: Learning about languages, cultures, and the dynamics of regional conflicts
• Joint and Interagency Operations: Collaborating with U.S. agencies and allied forces to achieve mission goals

Specialized courses include:

• Dynamics of International Terrorism (DIT): Studying terrorist groups and their operations
• Irregular Warfare Course (IWC): Addressing the complexities of hybrid threats and insurgencies
• Special Operations Air Warfare Course: Learning to coordinate air and ground operations
• Contingency Operations Course: Preparing for operations in unstable or denied environments
• Joint Special Operations Forces Orientation Course (JSOFOC): Training for joint mission planning with multiple forces

These courses teach students to make informed decisions quickly, which is critical for successful deployment.

Instructional Design and Training Methods

USAFSOS uses a blend of theoretical learning, real-world examples, and hands-on training. This approach includes:

• Classroom seminars: Focusing on doctrine and strategy
• Case studies: Reviewing past special operations to learn from real-world situations
• Wargaming and simulations: Practicing decision-making through role-playing and problem-solving exercises
• Guest lectures: Insights from experts and veterans who have experienced real operations
• Field training: Direct interaction with active special operations units

This approach helps students develop the skills needed to apply their knowledge under real-world pressure and prepares them for the mental and emotional challenges of modern warfare.

Integration with Special Operations Forces

As part of AFSOC, USAFSOS works closely with operational units to ensure that its training matches field missions. The school supports:

• 1st Special Operations Wing (1st SOW): Provides aviation support for special operations
• 24th Special Operations Wing (24th SOW): Air-ground integration through Special Tactics units
• Special Tactics Squadrons (STS): Train personnel in tactical air control, pararescue, and battlefield airmen
• Combat Aviation Advisors (CAA): Support the development of partner nations' aviation security

USAFSOS also supports U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), ensuring airpower and special operations align with national security strategies.

Role in Contemporary and Future Conflict

USAFSOS prepares personnel for modern challenges beyond traditional warfare, such as cyberattacks, propaganda campaigns, and irregular conflicts. The training ensures that special operations forces are ready to:

• Engage in great power competition: Such as in regions like the Indo-Pacific
• Combat non-state threats: Like ISIS or al-Qaeda
• Conduct information warfare: Countering disinformation and influencing online and public perceptions
• Support fragile governments: Helping build long-term security and stability in unstable regions
• Navigate complex environments: Where technology and local politics may shape mission outcomes

This broad training ensures that special operations forces remain agile and capable, adapting quickly to changing conditions.

Conclusion

The United States Air Force Special Operations School plays a crucial role in preparing personnel for the unique challenges of modern special operations. By focusing on military doctrine, strategic foresight, and operational readiness, USAFSOS shapes forces that think critically, operate across various domains, and succeed in unpredictable environments. USAFSOS ensures that airpower and special operations remain dominant in missions where understanding and influence are just as important as force.

The Art of Joint Warfare: Principles, Planning, & Execution

Joint warfare refers to the coordinated use of U.S. military forces from different service branches—Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard—under a unified plan to achieve national security objectives. These operations follow standardized frameworks established by the U.S. Department of Defense and formalized through Joint Publications. The foundational doctrinal reference is Joint Publication 3-0: Joint Operations, which defines how military campaigns are structured, directed, and synchronized across land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace to ensure unity of effort in both conflict and competition.

Foundations of Joint Warfare

Joint operations combine the unique strengths of each service into a unified and synchronized force. The Navy may control sea lanes, the Air Force may provide long-range strike and surveillance, the Army may seize and hold ground, the Marine Corps may secure entry points, and the Space and Cyber forces may control satellite systems, networks, and electromagnetic access. Success depends on integrated planning, disciplined execution, and mutual trust across all components. This approach minimizes operational gaps and improves mission effectiveness.

Principles of Joint Operations

Thirteen core principles guide the conduct of joint operations. These reflect both enduring military wisdom and adaptations from irregular and modern warfare:

• Objective: Focus every action on a clearly defined and attainable goal
• Offensive: Maintain the initiative through proactive and decisive action
• Mass: Concentrate combat power at the critical time and place
• Maneuver: Position forces to gain a relative advantage
• Economy of Force: Allocate minimum essential resources to secondary efforts
• Unity of Command: Ensure coordinated direction under a single commander
• Security: Protect forces, plans, and critical information
• Surprise: Strike at a time or place the enemy does not expect
• Simplicity: Prepare clear and uncomplicated plans
• Restraint: Apply force with discipline to avoid unnecessary damage
• Perseverance: Sustain efforts to achieve long-term goals despite setbacks
• Legitimacy: Maintain legal and moral authority throughout the operation
• Unity of Effort: Harmonize actions across services, agencies, and multinational partners, even without formal command authority

These principles may be adapted to fit different operational environments, levels of conflict, and strategic requirements.

Planning Joint Operations

Joint planning connects national strategic goals to coordinated military actions. It uses a conceptual tool called operational design, which helps frame complex environments and guide planning. Core components include:

• Operational Environment: All conditions—physical, informational, and human—that influence military activity
• Center of Gravity: The key source of power, strength, or will that must be protected or targeted
• Lines of Operation and Effort: Logical pathways that link tasks and effects to overarching goals
• Decisive Points: Locations, conditions, or events that may provide operational leverage
• End State: The desired set of conditions that defines mission success
• Operational Reach: The distance and duration over which forces may remain effective
• Risk: Factors that may threaten objectives and must be mitigated

While Joint Publication 3-0 introduces these fundamentals, Joint Publication 5-0 provides expanded guidance for planning staff and commanders.

Phases of a Joint Campaign

Campaigns are often organized into overlapping, flexible phases that help manage sequencing, force posture, and strategic adaptation:

• Shape: Establish favorable conditions and partnerships
• Deter: Demonstrate resolve and credible combat power to discourage aggression
• Seize the Initiative: Act quickly to gain early advantage
• Dominate: Apply decisive force to break resistance and control momentum
• Stabilize: Restore essential functions and secure critical areas
• Enable Civil Authority: Transition to legitimate governance and local control

Campaigns are rarely linear. Branches and sequels enable commanders to plan alternate or follow-on actions, providing the flexibility to respond to new threats or opportunities.

Command and Control

Command and control (C2) provides the framework for directing and coordinating military forces. It ensures that authority, responsibility, and decision-making are clearly assigned:

• Combatant Command (COCOM): Full command over assigned forces and missions
• Operational Control (OPCON): Authority to organize and employ forces for specific operations
• Tactical Control (TACON): Limited authority over designated tasks or activities
• Support: Obligation to assist another command with designated capabilities

Joint operations apply the principle of mission command, which emphasizes clear intent, decentralized execution, and trust. This enables initiative at all levels while maintaining alignment with strategic objectives, especially when conditions are dynamic or communications are degraded.

Joint Functions

Joint functions categorize the major military activities that support planning, execution, and assessment. These provide structure across the operational spectrum:

• Command and Control: Directing and managing forces across time and space
• Intelligence: Collecting and analyzing information about threats, environments, and opportunities
• Fires: Employing weapons or capabilities to generate physical or psychological effects
• Movement and Maneuver: Deploying and positioning forces to achieve advantage
• Protection: Defending personnel, equipment, and information from attack or disruption
• Sustainment: Delivering logistics, medical care, and support to maintain operations
• Information: Shaping knowledge, securing communications, and influencing perception

The information function includes cyber operations, electronic warfare, psychological operations, and strategic messaging. These tools shape what is known, influence behavior, and safeguard operational freedom in both physical and digital domains.

Executing Joint Operations

Execution turns plans into coordinated action. Operations may unfold gradually through shaping and deterrence or escalate rapidly in crisis. Commanders assess progress continuously and adjust resources, objectives, and timelines in real time.

Joint operations are rarely conducted in isolation. They typically support broader national strategies that include diplomatic engagement, economic measures, intelligence activity, and interagency coordination. Collaboration with allies, partners, and civilian organizations strengthens unity of effort and contributes to enduring stability.

Conclusion

Joint Publication 3-0 provides the foundation for how U.S. military forces operate together across land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. It organizes strategic thought into coherent doctrine, aligning tactical decisions with broader goals. Through shared principles, flexible planning, and unified execution, joint warfare supports national objectives with speed, precision, and resilience in a complex and evolving global environment.