the process and concept of developing an operational approach
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
i
AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE
AIR UNIVERSITY
OPERATIONAL DESIGN: THE ART OF FRAMING THE SOLUTION
by:
Major Richard R. Dickens, USAF
A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty
In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements
Advisor: Colonel (ret) Richard M. Perry, USAF
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
April 2010
DISTRIBUTION A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
ii
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do not
reflect the official policy or position of the US government or the Department of Defense. In
accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, it is not copyrighted, but is the property of the
United States government.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
iii
CONTENTS
Disclaimer……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ii
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. iv
I. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1
II. Purpose and Focus………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
III. Defining Operational Design………………………………………………………………………… 3
IV. Framing the Problem……………………………………………………………………………………. 5
V. Not All Problems are the Same…………………………………………………………………….. 6
VI. Framing the Solution……………………………………………………………………………………. 6
VII. Various Perspectives on Operational Design…………………………………………………. 8
VIII. Centers of Gravity…………………………………………………………………………………………. 16
IX. Methodology for Identifying Centers of Gravity……………………………………………. 17
X. On Strategy…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
XI. Connecting Strategy to Centers of Gravity…………………………………………………….. 20
XII. Attacking Centers of Gravity………………………………………………………………………….. 21
XIII. Two Scoops of Operational Art………………………………………………………………………. 23
XIV. A Fresh Perspective on the JOPP and Operational Design……………………………… 25
XV. Putting the Pieces Together…………………………………………………………………………… 29
XVI. Validating COAs…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 31
XVII. The Cognitive Map…………………………………………………………………………………………. 32
XVIII. Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 33
XIX. Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………………. 34
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
iv
ABSTRACT
While operational design has become a buzzword in the military planning community, it
is still poorly defined in joint doctrine. Furthermore, operational design has been allowed to
grow “off the vine” of strategy, from which it was born. The current definition of operational
design and the role it plays in the Joint Operation Planning Process require more fidelity.
Additional efforts are also required to reconnect operational design to strategy, refine the
elements of operational design and explain the role that operational design, operational art and
centers of gravity play in campaign planning. This paper examines several fundamental aspects
of operational design and how the process of operational design relates to strategy, centers of
gravity, operational art and the Joint Operation Planning Process. It first analyzes various
theories of operational design as well as the elements of operational design. It then discusses
the integration of strategy into the construction of operational design and shows how strategy
affects the identification of enemy centers of gravity. Next, it discusses the proper application
of operational design during the Joint Operation Planning Process. Additionally, it examines use
of a cognitive map to enhance development of an operational campaign and validate courses of
action to ensure they achieve all military objectives. Lastly, it proposes broad changes for joint
doctrine and the application of operational design.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
1
OPERATIONAL DESIGN: THE ART OF FRAMING THE SOLUTION
I. INTRODUCTION
The doctrinal debate regarding operational design has progressed rapidly in recent years
following lessons learned from poorly designed counterinsurgency campaigns in OIF and OEF. 1
Articles regularly appear in various military journals advocating various perspectives of
operational design. Dr. Jeffrey Reilly, author of Operational Design: Shaping Decision Analysis
through Cognitive Vision, states that “operational design is perhaps the single most important
transformation emerging in joint doctrine.” 2 Adam Elkus and Crispin Burke, in an article
entitled “Operational Design: Promise and Problems” which appeared in the Small Wars Journal
website blog, chronicled the evolution of operational design from the 1970s to 2010. The
following events mark some of the more recent chapters in the doctrinal debate:
2006 - Revised versions of Joint Publication (JP) 3-0 and 5-0 are published with an expanded
discussion of operational design and operational art. The elements of operational design now
include end state, objectives, effects and the previously labeled elements of operational art.
October 2006 - Marine Corps Concepts and Plans Division publishes Thoughts on the
Operational Art. Authors “wrote about operational design and campaigns within the context of
interagency design and the idea of the campaign itself.” 3
2008 - Army FM 3-0 Operations defines Operational Design as “the conception and
construction of the framework that underpins a campaign or major operation plan and its
subsequent execution.” 4
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
2
January 2008 - US Army Training and Doctrine Command publishes Pamphlet 525-5-500,
Commander’s Appreciation and Campaign Design. It “proposes a method for commanders to
develop a shared understanding of complex operational problems within their commands
(commander’s appreciation) and design a broad approach for problem resolution that links
tactical actions to strategic aims (campaign design).” 5
October 2008 - Dr. Jeffrey Reilly publishes Operational Design: Shaping Decision Analysis
Through Cognitive Vision. Dr. Reilly argues that a cognitive map can help visualize a campaign
plan and enhance decision making capabilities.
February 2009 - Army publishes draft version of FMI 5-2 Design. It outlines a three step
methodology for design that includes problem framing, creation of a solution, and assessment
and reframing.
March 2009 - Dr. Jack Kem publishes Campaign Planning: Tools of the Trade. It is designed
“to provide tools for campaign planning and to assist planners in considering not only the
traditional warfighting aspects of campaign planning but also all of the other actions that are
necessary for success in winning a war.” 6
May 2009 - Dr. Jack Kem publishes Design: Tools of the Trade. He lists the activities of
design as “1) understanding the current context; 2) visualizing the future context or desired end
state; and 3) developing an operational approach or “theory of action” to “bridge the gap” to
transform the current environment to the desired end state.” 7
October 2009 - General Mattis, Commander, US Joint Forces Command, publishes
memorandum entitled “Vision for a Joint Approach to Operational Design.” It calls for
“doctrine’s improvement of design *to+ focus on helping commanders and planners think about
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
3
complex problem and broad approaches rather than over-emphasizing the associated process
steps.” 8
II. PURPOSE AND FOCUS
This paper continues the dialogue above, particularly as put forth by General Mattis,
with a focus on broad approaches to problem solving that are founded in strategy. The five
aspects of strategy, centers of gravity (COGs), operational design, operational art and the Joint
Operation Planning Process (JOPP) are examined and synthesized into a coherent framework
for operational campaign planning within the context of the JOPP.
First, this paper looks at various definitions and applications of operational design.
Second, it examines the current focus that operational design places on framing the problem.
Third, it considers the role of strategy and COGs and their connection to operational campaign
planning. Fourth, it examines the delineation between operational design and operational art
and provides considerations for relabeling these design elements. Fifth, it considers the
application of operational design and operational art in the JOPP, particularly in regards to the
phases of mission analysis and course of action (COA) development. Finally, this paper offers a
logical methodology for developing a campaign plan and considerations of a cognitive map.
III. DEFINING OPERATIONAL DESIGN
Part of the debate involving operational design is agreeing to a definition. Often the
entire concept of operational design varies by source. For clarity, any reference hereafter of
design will refer to design at the operational level of war unless otherwise noted.
Both JP 3-0 and JP 5-0 define operational design as “the conception and construction of
the framework that underpins a campaign or joint operation plan and its subsequent
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
4
execution” as well as “the practical extension of the creative process.” 9 Unfortunately, this
definition is too abstract to be helpful to the military planner. If operational design is a
framework, what does that framework look like? What do we use as a basis for that
framework? How can it best be applied?
Colonel Banach and Dr. Ryan, coauthors of “The Art of Design: A Design Methodology”
note that “America’s International Technology Education Association defines design as an
iterative decision-making process that produces plans by which resources are converted into
products that meet human needs and wants or solve problems.” 10
They also note that “the
definition implies that design is focused on solving problems.” 11
Although this definition is
more straightforward in connecting means to ends, it is still too vague. First, how is the
“iterative decision-making process” shaped? Second, while it speaks to the general art of
problem solving, it fails to capture the essence of problem solving at the operational level,
which uses strategy to frame the left and right boundaries for how the problem is to be solved.
So what might be a more useful definition? To begin, defining operational design has
been overcomplicated. Taking the phrase literally, operational design is quite simply the design
of an operational campaign. Although this statement is victim to tautology at its worst, it does
show that when arguing definitions of design, the real question is less about what operational
design is, but rather about how design should be done, or by what way the processes of
operational design are formed. One immutable principle of war is that the strategic level of war
exists to develop strategy for the operational and, as required, tactical level of war. Thus, every
discussion of operational design should begin with strategy. Likewise, design that fails to nest
itself within overarching strategy is doomed to failure. The author offers the following
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
5
definition for operational design: the strategic framework that underpins a campaign or joint
operation plan and its subsequent execution to achieve the desired end state; the structure of
the strategy that connects tasks to achievement of the desired end state. This definition puts
strategy, which is lacking in current perspectives of operational design, squarely on the
shoulders of those devising the operational design. While it must be acknowledged that
operational design is an iterative process, it should be focused on the strategy or method by
which the campaign seeks to achieve success rather than the problem itself. In the words of
Elkus and Burke, “campaigning needs to be thought of as an aspect of strategy rather than a
wholly separate operational level.” 12
Currently, there’s a lack of discussion on strategy within
the doctrinal debate. This point will be examined in further detail in later sections.
IV. FRAMING THE PROBLEM
For reasons explained in the previous section, discussion of operational design often
avoids a concrete definition, instead choosing to list those elements that are part of the design
process. This technique lends a checklist mentality to the process and further mystifies the
benefit of operational design since an overarching methodology for tying together disparate
elements of operational design is never adequately addressed. One commonality, however,
among the multitude of writings on operational design is a focus on “framing the problem” as
an element of operational design. What drives the problem focused perspective on operational
design? One reason for this, as Dr. Kem points out, is that the military has a woeful “tendency
to fight the wrong problem.” 13
Another reason is that it can often be extremely difficult to
simply define the problem, particularly when given incomplete guidance and poorly defined
objectives. Lastly, problems come in all shapes and sizes. Calculating a military response would
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
6
take dramatically different forms if the aggressor were Columbia in one case and China in the
other. Similarly, the campaign plan for a major combat operation varies significantly from that
of a humanitarian response. In short, part of the difficulty in defining the problem is that
problems often vary in complexity.
V. NOT ALL PROBLEMS ARE THE SAME
The US Army’s Training and Doctrine Command Pamphlet 525-5-500, Commander’s
Appreciation and Campaign Design, identifies three types of operational problems.
Well-structured problems. These problems are relatively easy to define and there is a
correct solution to the problem. 14
This is often the case at the tactical level where there is an
objective and a simple solution for achieving the objective.
Medium-structured problems. These problems are more complex than well-structured
problems. There could be more than one solution and thus discussion centers on what would
be the best solution. 15
Ill-structured or wicked problems. These problems are the most complex and the problem is
either difficult to define or changes as individual parts are solved. 16
This is similar to trying to
solve a Rubik’s cube with a different person working each side of the cube without being able
to see the other people’s side. Every move that you make affects the problem of the people
working the other sides and vice versa. You may not be able to solve the entire problem, but
you can work on making your section better.
VI. FRAMING THE SOLUTION
Certainly defining the problem is important, but has too much attention been paid to it?
Perhaps. There are a number of possible reasons for this focus away from the solution:
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
7
Difficulty in defining the problem. Unfortunately, tactical level problems are the only ones
that are well-structured problems. Operational level problems tend to be medium or ill-
structured problems. For example, today’s military environment is often a complex hybrid that
may require a combination of conventional, unconventional and irregular warfare to achieve
both a decisive military victory and suppress an insurgency. Ill-structured or wicked problems,
by their very nature, tend to draw focus on defining the problem rather than solving it.
Focus on problem solving is more difficult. It’s simply easier to focus on defining and
redefining the problem than it is to focus on solving the problem. Thus, design efforts tend to
focus on comprehension of the problem rather than developing a strategy to achieve a
solution.
Focus on the solution requires application of strategy. It’s impossible to solve a problem
without first developing a strategy for devising the solution. Yet strategy is thought to reside at
the strategic level and largely ignored at the operational level. This perspective fails to
understand the implication of strategy for devising an operational campaign. The very
foundation of a strategic level of war is to devise strategy that guides the operational level of
war and ties multiple operational level campaigns into a cohesive war plan. Focusing thought
and strategy entirely on the operational level of war fails to comprehend the larger perspective
and the role for a strategic level of war.
No standardized methodology of operational design. Operational design comes in a variety
of techniques. As discussed previously, the various perspectives of operational design are
focused on what elements belong within operational design and what elements don’t but rarely
is the debate focused on how and why those elements are pieced together to form a cohesive
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
8
operational campaign. The next section touches on several common and competing
perspectives of operational design.
VII. VARYING PERSPECTIVES ON OPERATIONAL DESIGN
There are various competing theories on the application of operational design. Using
the definition of operational design discussed earlier, any structure of strategy that connects
task to end state is considered a valid operational design paradigm. The following is a partial
list of some of the more prevalent operational design constructs:
Joint Doctrine. JP 5-0 states that “the key to operational design essentially involves: (1)
understanding the strategic guidance (determining the end state and objectives); (2) identifying
the adversary’s principal strengths and weaknesses, and; (3) developing an operational concept
that will achieve strategic and operational objectives.” 17
From this section we can see the lack
of guidance driving a connection between the “operational concept” and achievement of the
“strategic and operational objectives.” JP 5-0 lists 17 different elements of operational design.
These are considered “tools to help supported JFCs and their staff visualize what the joint
operation should look like and to shape the commander’s intent.” 18
Again, no discussion
follows on how the joint operation should be framed to achieve the desired objectives or end
state.
The closest that JP 5-0 comes to divulging a true design for an operational campaign is in
this statement regarding centers of gravity: “The COG is always linked to the objective. If the
objective changes, the center of gravity should also change.” 19
Emphasis is placed upon
affecting the enemy’s COG through careful critical factor analysis, assuming that this will lead to
military victory. Unfortunately, this connection between an objective and center of gravity is
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
9
never fully explained or justified within joint doctrine. This methodology is also contradicted
within joint doctrine when it discusses using lines of operation to achieve objectives without
tying either to considerations of COGs.
Joint doctrine also discusses operational design without ever providing a role for its
application. Nowhere is this more evident than discussion of COA development. In essence,
joint doctrine jumps from guidance to developed COAs. It never stops to discuss the
methodology for developing a COA. It simply lists the elements that should be present after a
COA is developed: “(1) Major strategic and operational tasks to be accomplished in the order in
which they are to be accomplished. (2) Capabilities required. (3) Task organization and related
communications systems support concept. (4) Sustainment concept. (5) Deployment concept.
(6) Estimate of time required to reach mission success criteria or termination criteria. (7)
Concept for maintaining a theater reserve.” 20
This, in essence, leaves a large void that could
best be described as “insert strategy here.”
Dr. Jeffrey Reilly. Dr. Reilly is currently on faculty at the Air Force’s Air Command and Staff
College where he teaches an operational design elective. Dr. Reilly developed a construct of
operational design that is iterative in nature and heavily dependent upon first framing the
problem. Figure 1, from Dr. Reilly’s book entitled Operational Design: Shaping Decision Analysis
through Cognitive Vision, shows how he primarily categorizes operational design as “problem
framing” and operational art as “strategy development.”
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
10
Figure 1 - Dr. Reilly’s Separation of Operational Design and Art in the JOPP 21
Dr. Reilly’s construct of operational design is best explained through his concept of a
cognitive map (figure 2).
Figure 2 - Dr. Reilly’s Cognitive Map for Operational Design 22
As depicted, lines of operation are developed to affect adversary centers of gravity which, in
turn, lead to achievement of military objectives and producing the desired end state through
effects. Thus, it is in essence a COG-centric methodology similar advocated by joint doctrine.
Similar to joint doctrine, it also lacks a connection between strategy and task beyond emphasis
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
11
of focus on the enemy’s COGs. Since Dr. Reilly’s thoughts and writings have so greatly affected
the curriculum of ACSC, this methodology will be discussed further in the next point.
Air Command and Staff College. ACSC currently advocates a COG-centric methodology of
operational design based upon Dr. Reilly’s theories. The curriculum focuses heavily on a
methodical yet iterative process shaped by cognitive vision through use of a cognitive map.
This methodology, however, lacks a logical connection from tasks and decisive points to
achievement of end state. As evidenced in Dr. Reilly’s cognitive map, it places COGs between
lines of operation and military objectives, creates a misleading connection between COGs and
LOOs/military objectives. This is misleading because LOOs are developed to achieve objectives,
not affect COGs. How the LOOs are developed is through analysis of COGs. Thus, by definition,
if the LOOs are built using critical vulnerabilities from the COG, then they intrinsically affect the
COG. Yet there is no guarantee that destruction of a COG leads to satisfying any one particular
objective. Hence, placing COGs between LOOs and objectives is placing it at the wrong place in
the cognitive process. This point will be revisited later.
Dr. Jack Kem. Dr. Jack Kem is a faculty member at the US Army’s Command and General
Staff College and has written a book entitled Campaign Planning: Tools of the Trade. In his
book, although the term operational design isn’t referenced, he does discuss various elements
of operational design. He delineates critical reasoning, which is used to determine the
problem, from creative thinking, which is used to determine the solution. He frames an
argument for how to think by moving from determining the problem to determining the
solution to validating the solution (figure 3).
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
12
Figure 3 - Dr. Kem's Analysis of Problem Solving 23
This cognitive progression, however, skips an integral step that while perhaps intuitive,
is essential to building a structure of strategy. After determining the problem, but before
moving on to determining the solution, an attempt should be made to frame the solution. This
is the “framework” that operational design can provide through a structure of strategy. A
better cognitive progression is in figure 4.
Figure 4 - A Better Method of Problem Solving
Dr. Kem ties problem solving to the steps of the Joint Operational Planning Process. In
his view, defining the problem is accomplished during mission analysis, creating the solution is
accomplished during COA development/selection and testing the solution is accomplished
during wargaming.24 According to Dr. Kem, the second step (creating the solution) is a
function of identifying the ends first, the means next and finally the ways. Identifying the ways
is related to the step of COA development. But performing COA development is the difficult
task. Dr. Kem’s guidance for COA development comes from FM 5-0. The six steps of COA
development are: analyze relative combat power, generate options, array initial forces,
develop the concept of operations, assign headquarters and develop COA statements and
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
13
sketches. 25
But this falls into the same circular argument of joint publication; it explains what
but not how. Dr. Kem includes a COA development checklist to better answer the question of
how. This checklist includes task organization, scheme of maneuver, main effort, defeat and/or
stability mechanisms and anticipated use of reserves. 26
At the heart of this methodology lies
the emphasis on a main effort focused toward a decisive operation via a defeat and/or stability
mechanism. This methodology, unfortunately, provides no blueprint for campaign design.
Army Design. Army FMI 5-2 Design defines design as “a way of organizing conceptual work
within a command to assist the commander in his formulation of operational concepts.” 27
Per
this interim manual, design incorporates four steps: framing the environment, framing the
problem, developing a solution, and assessment and reframing. Colonel Banach and Dr. Ryan’s
article appearing in the March-April 2009 edition of Military Review entitled “The Art of Design:
A Design Methodology” further expounds on this methodology. They discuss the three primary
elements of Army design: the problem, the operational environment and the solution
(reference figure 5). This depiction is a modified graphic that appears in FMI 5-2, Design.
Assessment and reframing simply conveys the iterative nature of the design process.
Figure 5 - Elements of Army Design 28
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
14
The first two elements, the problem and the operational environment contribute to
comprehension of the problem and provide context for the third element, the solution. But
they only inform the solution, they don’t drive the solution. Taking a closer look at the element
of “design concept” per the diagram or “developing a solution” as it is labeled in FMI 5-2
Design, the first consideration listed is “broad approach - strategy.” 29
This highlights once again
that the true core of operational design…developing a structured application of strategy, but
offers no methodology for filling that requirement.
General Tommy Franks’ Lines and Slices. When General Tommy Franks developed his
infamous “lines and slices” model, he penned a form of operational design. The “lines” down
the side included the lines of operation and the “slices” across the top detailed the target sets
or COGs (figure 6). Implicit in this construct was the notion that affecting all the target sets
would accomplish the objectives and create the desired end state.
Figure 6 - General Tommy Franks' "Lines & Slices" Matrix 30
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
15
Colonel John Warden’s Five Ring Model. Similar to General Franks’ lines and slices, Colonel
Warden’s 5 Rings provides a construct for an operation, albeit a very loosely framed design
(figure 7). It proposes that pressing upon the center of the circle will achieve the desired
objectives and thus the desired end state.
Figure 7 - Colonel Warden's Five Ring Model 31
General Mattis’s Vision for Operational Design. In a memorandum dated 6 October 2009,
General Mattis addressed the growing service focus on operational design. Recognizing that
the Army had led the design development and seeing increased efforts by other services, the
memo is an attempt to standardize design initiatives across services to achieve “unity of
effort.” 32
He outlines four areas for joint design development: emphasis on understanding the
problem, understanding the operational environment, developing an operational approach,
and reframing the problem. 33
Again, this discussion on operational design leaves a void in the
element he has labeled “developing an operational approach,” emphasizing only that it is
befallen on “the commander *to+ begin to develop an operational approach.” 34
Once again, the
methodology for designing an operational campaign falls upon the “insert strategy here”
premise.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
16
Observations. The best models for operational design provide structure to the operational
problem’s solution through a framework of strategy. They answer the critical questions of how
strategy will be employed to achieve end state. This enables the campaign planners to decide
the details that should be done (tasks) to achieve the desired end state. It frames the bridge
from strategy to task. Thus, operational design it best utilized not to frame the problem, but
rather to frame the solution.
All of the discussed perspectives of operational design are similar in that they utilize a
COG-centric methodology. Whether the operation applies to conventional military operations
that utilize a defeat mechanism or shaping operations that require stability operations, the
emphasis is on applying pressure to the COG. Thus, the success of operational design depends
precisely upon selection of the right COG. This makes methodology for COG identification
critical to achieving military objectives.
VIII. CENTERS OF GRAVITY
Joint Publication (JP) 5-0 defines a COG as “a source of moral or physical strength,
power, and resistance — what Clausewitz called ‘the hub of all power and movement, on which
everything depends…the point at which all our energies should be directed.’” 35
COGs have
been used to replace strategy with science by assuming that negating the enemy’s COG will
negate the enemy’s capability at that level of war. Analysis of the enemy, it is assumed, yields
identification of the enemy’s COG. After COGs are identified, lines of operation are aligned to
press upon them. Thus, the current application for COG is clearly based upon the concept
devised by Clausewitz.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
17
Unfortunately, neither Clausewitz nor JP 5-0 currently provides a useful methodology
for identifying COGs. Although methodologies vary, most are based upon planners developing
an extensive list of candidate COGs which are then analyzed to determine a smaller list of
determined COGs. Some of these methodologies are examined in the next setion.
IX. METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING CENTERS OF GRAVITY
Joint doctrine adheres to the Clausewitzian notion that the COG is a source of power.
Proper methodology for identifying that source of power, however, is debatable. There are
currently three basic methods for identifying centers of gravity.
Political, Military, Economic, Social, Informational, Infrastructure (PMESII). This
methodology, found in JP 3-0 and 5-0, is based upon System of Systems Analysis (SoSA) that
analyzes the linkages between systems (political, military, economic, social, informational,
infrastructure) to find key nodes. PMESII builds a well developed and interconnected map of
the adversary and how he operates. It usually leads to easily identified COGs, but at the
expense of significant time and energy for analysis. It also operates on the principle of effects-
based operations, connecting nodes to supposed desirable effects. General Mattis,
Commander, USJFCOM, clearly didn’t believe that SoSA benefits didn’t outweight the negatives
when he stated that his command would “no longer use, sponsor, or export the terms and
concepts related to EBO, ONA, and SoSA in our training, doctrine development, and support to
JPME” (emphasis in original). 36
Although this guidance applied only to USJFCOM, his guidance
has had impact military-wide. For example, PMESII is not currently taught at the Air Force’s Air
Command and Staff College. Interviews with attendees of the Joint and Combined Warfighting
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
18
School Joint PME-II, however, indicate that is it still included in the curriculum of at least one
joint training program. 37
Adversary’s Objective Based Methodology. This methodology is best presented by Colonel
(ret) Dale Eikmeier at Command and General Staff College. It is based upon determining the
enemy’s objective and defeating the COG that provides that capability. This methodology is
depicted in figure 8.
Much like SoSA, it implies that our strategy should be based upon whatever is valuable
to the adversary. This method’s failings, however, is that is accounts for denying the enemy
their objectives but neglects achieving friendly objectives should they be different that the
enemy’s strengths. While it may be good for tactical and defensive operations, it provides
limited help in the design of an operational campaign.
Figure 8 - Col Eikmeier's COG Methodology
Pick-and-Defend. In the absence of SoSA that drives PMESII, per Gen Mattis’ guidance, this
methodology has grown in popularity. Although similar to the Clausewitzian model, it allows
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
19
for anything to be a COG. It operates by selecting a COG and providing defense as to why it
should be a COG. This method certainly has its advantages. First, it’s far quicker than SoSA.
Second, there is some rationality in the belief that a COG is typically obvious. As Dr. Joe Strange
says, “many hours are…wasted in fruitless discussion and argument; hours that could be better
spent on planning.” 38
Lastly, it doesn’t require hazarding a guess at the enemy’s objective like
Colonel Eikmeier’s methodology. A hybrid combination of the Clausewitzian and Pick-and-
Defend processes is taught at ACSC.
Observations. There is a better methodology for determining the appropriate COG, but it
can’t be developed without first discussing the missing link in operational design…strategy.
X. ON STRATEGY
Outlining the connection from strategy to task is the most valuable asset that
operational design can provide. Quite literally, it should provide the design of the operation
but not the details. As was shown earlier, any basis of operational design must first start with
strategy. War, as Clausewitz theorized, is “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent
to fulfill our will.” 39
Yet the military today is involved in conflicts that often fall short of war.
While compelling an adversary may be one type of strategy, there are typically three methods
of grand strategy: shaping, deterring, and compelling. Each of these strategies operates
through various mechanisms. For example, shaping utilizes the mechanisms of influencing,
stabilizing and enabling. Deterrence can use either direct or indirect mechanisms. Compelling
utilizes various mechanisms such as attrition, annihilation and coercion. Robert Pape, in his
book Bombing to Win, argues that coercion, as a mechanism, is applied through methods
including denial, punishment, risk, and decapitation. 40
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
20
XI. CONNECTING STRATEGY TO CENTERS OF GRAVITY
The development of strategy is fundamental to identification of centers of gravity. This
is because each strategy and corresponding mechanism is specific to an appropriate COG. In
other words, strategy determines where our effects should be targeted. Figure 9 depicts the
connection between strategy, mechanisms and COGs.
Figure 9 - Connecting Strategy to COGs
This connection between strategy and COGs is what’s currently missing in our doctrine
for determining COGs. Once a strategy is chosen and that strategy is linked to a mechanism,
the appropriate COG can be analyzed using critical factor analysis to determine vulnerabilities.
It’s important to note that more than one strategy, mechanism or method may be utilized.
This depiction also highlights how disconnect can occur when no clear strategy is
present. During Operation ALLIED FORCE, for example, General Short and General Clark argued
about what was the true COG. In reality, they were both right, but for different strategies.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
21
XII. ATTACKING CENTERS OF GRAVITY
When Clausewitz theorized about the nature of war in his book, On War, he stated that
centers of gravity (COG) were “the hub of all power and movement, on which everything
depends. That is the point which all our energies should be directed.” 41
Joint doctrine
discusses critical factor analysis as a way to identify COG critical vulnerabilities. Yet a logical
connection from critical capability to critical requirement to critical vulnerability is not well
developed. This failure to connect critical capabilities to critical requirements to critical
vulnerabilities is aggravated by common use of a critical factor analysis quad chart (figure 10).
Figure 10 - COG Critical Factor Analysis 42
Using this chart fails to convey the connection from one element to the next and the critical
factors are treated as independent brainstorming efforts. Although already taught at the Joint
Advanced Warfighting School, inclusion of a diagram depicting COG analysis hierarchy (figure
11) into joint doctrine would promote better understanding of critical factor analysis and the
proper linkage between critical factors.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
22
Figure 11 - Critical Factory Analysis Hierarchy 43
After critical factor analysis, a list of critical vulnerabilities is developed to affect a COG. These
vulnerabilities are then aligned along logical or physical lines of operation to create decisive
points. Connecting the dots already examined leads to an operational design construct that is
depicted in figure 12. Of note is the consideration of direct action against a COG as well (as
depicted in LOO 1).
Figure 12 - Linking Strategy to LOOs
This construct is, in and of itself, an operational design. It aligns lines of operation to affect
critical vulnerabilities which affect the COG that is appropriate for the given strategy and
mechanism. But this is simply the structure, or intellectual framework, as it is described in joint
doctrine. It provides a blueprint, but no qualitative considerations. It’s not an operation since
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
23
it remains in theoretical form. Applying specifics to this diagram is what moves it from an
operational design to an operational campaign plan. This is where operational art plays a role.
XIII. TWO SCOOPS OF OPERATIONAL ART
Operational design is simply structure. As an analogy, if you were building a house, the
framework of operational design may tell you that you need four walls, a floor, ceiling, door,
some windows, electrical outlets and plumbing. These are the things that are required to
construct a house, but just imagine the types of houses that could be built with this limited
guidance. Perhaps the plumbing and electrical wiring was run outside the walls. Or perhaps
the windows were along the floorboards or up against the ceiling. All of the qualitative aspects
of the construction could be considered operational art. In our analogy, these elements could
include things like flow, lighting, use of space, colors and textures.
In joint doctrine, seventeen elements of operational design are listed (figure 13).
Figure 13 - Elements of Operational Design 44
In Dr. Reilly’s book, he divides the elements of operational design into those that frame
the problem and those that enable strategy development (figure 14).
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
24
Figure 14 - Dr. Reilly’s Separation of the Seventeen Elements of Operational Design into Distinct Elements of Operational Design and Elements of Operational Art, and their
Relationship to the Joint Operation Planning Process Upon closer inspection, however, the elements of operational design fall into three distinct
categories. The first category encompasses those elements that provide a framework for the
problem. The second category includes those elements that provide a framework for a
solution. The third category includes those elements that provide a qualitative element to the
solution. In other words, while some elements provide the basis for an operational design,
others provide the basis for making that design more robust and intricate. While Dr. Reilly
advocates that some operational design elements assist in strategy development, that label
applies too much weight on their value to strategy rather than their value of improving an
already developed strategy. A division of the three types of operational design elements may
be considered as represented in figure 15.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
25
Figure 15 - The Separation of the Seventeen Elements of Operational Design into Distinct Elements of Mission Analysis, Operational Design and Operational Art
XIV. A FRESH PERSPECTIVE ON THE JOPP AND OPERATIONAL DESIGN
The doctrinal definition of operational design is too limited to be of utility. The
following recommendations should improve the usefulness of the JOPP:
Mission Analysis Should Frame the Problem. FM 5-0 Operations states that framing a plan
starts in mission analysis. 45
Although not all problems are well-structured problems, mission
analysis should be considered the opportunity to frame the problem. The following factors
should be considered part of framing the problem:
o Purpose for the mission. The purpose for the operational campaign is what links it to the
achievement of national strategic objectives. It is purpose that enables definition of end
state and provides cause for accomplishment of the mission.
o Evaluating the operational environment. Certainly one aspect of framing the problem
includes evaluating the operational environment. This includes several of the mission
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
26
analysis key steps listed in JP 5-0 such as known facts, current status, risk and staff
estimates. 46
Although this shouldn’t lead to one particular way of solving a problem, it
should present factors that may affect how you choose to solve a problem.
o Defining the problem. The first and most important step of framing the problem is
defining what the problem is. For military planners, this is the desired end state. Once an
end state is agreed upon, achieving the end state becomes the problem. Everything else is
simply based upon comprehension of the problem which may not be entirely possible with
medium-structured or wicked problems. In these cases, an agreed upon next end state is
sufficient to proceed on to problem solving. Mission planning is an iterative process and
previously agreed upon end states may require modification with changes in the
operational environment. Keeping the problem focused on the desired end state ensures
that military operations don’t serve themselves.
Once end state is determined, objectives should be determined. These may be
either specified or implied. Objectives should be validated by determining the effects that
they will create and whether or not those effects will create the desired end state.
Connections between these analyses are displayed in figure 16.
Figure 16 - Output of Mission Analysis
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
27
Mission Analysis Shouldn’t Include Tasks. JP 5-0 confuses mission analysis with the mission.
This leads to a misguided and premature focus on tasks. JP 5-0 states (in bold) that “the joint
force’s mission is the task or set of tasks, together with the purpose, that clearly indicates the
action to be taken and the reason for doing so.” 47
Mission analysis should focus simply on
what’s either known or implied to frame the problem. Discussion of tasks implies a method of
achieving the desired end state. Mission essential tasks are really just operational objectives
and this is the lowest level that mission analysis should provide. Consideration of tasks is a
more appropriate consideration when applying operational design.
Operational Design Should Frame the Solution. During the joint operation planning process,
this is tied directly to COA development. Methodology for COA development is perhaps the
most lacking aspect of Joint Publication 3-0 and 5-0. Now that those things that aren’t part of
operational design have been stripped away, we can focus on what should be included in
operational design. Framing the solution involves accomplishment of a number of interrelated
actions:
o Determining strategy. As discussed earlier, the varieties of strategy include shaping,
deterring, and compelling. At times, a combination of these strategies may be employed.
o Selecting the operational mechanism. The operational mechanism is perhaps the very
core of operational design and strategy itself.
Shaping mechanisms. Stability mechanisms include influencing, stabilizing and
enabling. These are used to stabilize a nation rather than defeat it militarily.
Deterring mechanisms. Deterrence can be accomplished either directly or indirectly.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
28
Compelling mechanisms. Compelling mechanisms are useful for achieving decisive
military victory and conventional military operations against a fielded force that can be
defeated on the battlefield. They include attrition, annihilation and coercion. According
to Robert Pape in his book, Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, coercion
can be accomplished via denial, punishment, risk or decapitation. 48
o Identify the COG based upon mechanism(s) selected. As depicted in figure 9, a
mechanism operates by acting upon a COG.
o Perform critical factor analysis of the COG. This provides identification of critical
vulnerabilities. These critical vulnerabilities enable a COG to be affected indirectly.
o Align critical vulnerabilities into decisive points along lines of operation. Once critical
vulnerabilities are identified, they should be oriented along physical or logical lines of
operation.
o Defining Tasks. Once lines of operation are developed, tasks are devised to press upon
the critical vulnerabilities via decisive points.
Operational Design Should Consider Decision Making. As Dr. Reilly points out, “current
doctrine fails to empower the intrinsic relationship between operational design and decision
analysis.” 49
Through use of decision points, operational design can plan for assumptions that
turn out to be invalid or lines of operation that fails to produce the desired results. By
leveraging efforts before the conflict, commanders can be prepared to make quicker, more
effective decisions during operations.
Operational Art Improves the Solution. Applying the operational art considerations
discussed above can improve the operational campaign. They are not binary qualities that
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
29
either exist or don’t exist. Rather, they are linear qualities that always exist to some degree.
For example, how balanced is the campaign plan? How much anticipation has been
considered?
Figure 17 - Connecting Problem Framing (Mission Analysis), Solution Framing (Operational Design) and Solution Improvement (Operational Art) to the JOPP
A New Approach to the JOPP. The above discussion reframes an approach to the JOPP. This
is reflected in an updated depiction of Dr. Reilly’s delineation, as presented in figure 17.
XIV. PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER
Now that the construct of operational design is established, some things become
clearer. First, operational design is simply a construct. Generic labels are sufficient to build a
construct from strategy to task. Applying specifics to the generic place holders is what makes
the independent elements of mission analysis, operational design and operational art a
complete course of action. Figure 18 shows these independent elements.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
30
Figure 18 - Mission Analysis, Operational Design and Operational Art Outputs
By combining these elements, we can see the formation of a logical arrangement where
end state analysis and operational design meet and is enhanced by operational art. This is
depicted below in figure 19. From the graphic, we can see that operational design is an
iterative process, changing as required to ensure that the military objectives are met with
maximum efficiency. This is accomplished by validating the COA.
Figure 19 - The Operational Campaign: Connecting Problem Framing (Mission Analysis), Solution Framing (Operational Design) and Solution Improvement (Operational Art)
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
31
XV. VALIDATING COAs
According to joint doctrine, COAs are valid if they are acceptable, feasible, adequate,
distinguishable and complete. Measuring adequacy can be accomplished by cross referencing
the lines of operation against the objectives. If there is an objective that is not affected by a
line of operation, then that COA is not adequate and should not be considered valid. For
example, if we analyze the objectives that are achieved through our LOOs and we assess what is
depicted in figure 20, then we know that we don’t have a valid COA since there is no LOO that
affects objective 5. In this circumstance, we must revisit our strategy, mechanisms and COGs
that were chosen. Likewise, if we have a LOO that doesn’t affect an objective, then we have
developed an unnecessary LOO and may be eliminated, minimizing wasted effort.
Figure 20 - Validating COAs by Cross Referencing LOOs vs. Objectives
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
32
XVI. THE COGNITIVE MAP
Gen Mattis, USJFCOM/CC, states that “our current doctrine falls short of providing a
coherent operational design process that helps the commander visualize the desired state and
devise an approach to a complex operational problem.” 50
The use of a cognitive map, however,
can assist “JFCs and their staffs with envisioning an entire operation.” 51
Figure 21 depicts an
example of a cognitive map from Dr. Reilly’s book. As discussed earlier, this cognitive map
makes an illogical connection between COGs and objectives. COG selection should be based on
strategy which is independent from development of objectives that are derived from end state.
Although they intersect along lines of operation, one should not be derived from the other.
Figure 21 - Dr. Reilly's Cognitive Map
The depiction shown earlier in figure 20 is a more logically structured cognitive map.
This map could be enhanced, however, by inclusion of some elements in Dr. Reilly’s cognitive
map. For example, more fidelity could be gained through depiction of phasing and decision
points could be incorporated to assist in decision making. A depiction of this enhanced
cognitive map is depicted in figure 22.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
33
Figure 22 - Enhanced Cognitive Map of the Operational Campaign
XVII. SUMMARY
War, as Clausewitz theorized, is a struggle an opponent attempts to force the other to
submit to his will. 52
As with any contest of wills, gaining an advantage depends largely upon
being able to predict reactions to actions and the subsequent results. At some point, in other
words, the element of predictive decision making becomes critical. If we do this, then the
enemy will do that and when the enemy does that, we will gain the upper hand. This quality of
predictive decision making, or strategy, is critical for the military campaign planner, but is
developed mostly by experience and judgment, which is unfortunately rather difficult to teach.
The best military commanders apply strategy intuitively. Unfortunately, as the saying
goes, we’re not all Napoleon. Using only personal experience and judgment to devise a
campaign plan sometimes falls short of the goal, particularly when fighting ill-structured
problems that simply can’t be comprehended or solved by one individual. Operational design
and operational art are capable of partially filling that void. Effective operational design and
operational art can capture the critical elements of predictive decision making developed by
the experience of others. They can provide both structure and texture to a campaign.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
34
Operational design provides the structure by linking strategy to tasks. Operational art provides
planning considerations that make a campaign qualitatively better. Together they attempt to
negate the requirement for the genius of a gifted commander, but they still require a
foundation built on strategy to provide direction.
Operational design, like strategy, is not a new concept. Military commanders, when
attempting to achieve their objectives or desired end state, execute their vision of operational
design through a structured application of strategy. The recent development in this field is the
attempt to codify operational design into doctrine that is useful to military planners.
XVIII. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following basic recommendations are intended to further both the doctrinal debate
and real world application of operational design.
Regain Focus on Strategy. The emphasis on COGs in military planning has overshadowed
the requirement for a cohesive strategy. The operational level of war has gained too much
independence from the strategic level of war. An operational campaign that is not devised as
part of an overall strategic war plan is flawed. Proper analysis of COGs is vital to the success of
an operational campaign, but only when identified through the context of the strategy to be
employed. Furthermore, that strategy should be properly matched to the enemy.
Distinguishable COAs should be based on varying strategies or strategic mechanisms. Further
debate should be focused on the connection between strategy and operational design.
Use Operational Design to Frame the Solution. Having emphasized how important strategy
is to the operational campaign, the next logical step is to show how that strategy will lead to
achieving the desired end state. This is the structure that operational design can provide.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
35
Within the JOPP, mission analysis should frame the problem and operational design should
frame the solution. The elements of operational art provide considerations that improve a
campaign plan. This delineation better outlines distinct objectives for each step of the JOPP.
Revise Joint Doctrine. Joint doctrine is at best confusing when attempting to delineate
operational design from operational art and explaining how both apply to the JOPP. Mission
analysis should provide problem framing. COA development requires application of operational
design, through strategy, and operational art considerations. The elements of operational
design should be split into distinct elements of mission analysis, elements of operational design
and elements of operational art to better align with the JOPP. Additionally, a cognitive map
oriented correctly will provide a more concrete cognitive vision to the JFC and his staff. This,
however, should not be included as mission analysis, and should vary with each COA
developed.
1 Adam Elkus and Crispin Burke, “Operational Design: Promise and Problems,” Obtained from the Small Wars
Journal website: www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/362-elkus.pdf, 1. 2 Dr. Jeffrey M. Reilly, Operational Design, 1.
3 Elkus and Burke, 2.
4 Department of Defense (DOD), Field Manual (FM) 3-0 Operations, 6-6.
5 DOD, Training and Doctrine Command Pamphlet 525-5-500, i.
6 Dr. Jack D. Kem, Campaign Planning: Tools of the Trade, 1.
7 Dr. Jack D. Kem, Design: Tools of the Trade, 1.
8 General James N. Mattis, “Vision for a Joint Approach to Operational Design,” memo dated 6 October 2009,
Attch. 1, Obtained from the JFCOM website at http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2009/aod_2009.pdf, 7. 9 DOD, Joint Publication (JP) 3-0 Operations, IV-3 & JP 5-0 Joint Operation Planning, xvii, IV-2.
10 Stephan J. Banach and Dr. Alex Ryan, “The Art of Design: A Design Methodology,” Military Review. March-
April 2009, 105. 11
Banach and Ryan, 105. 12
Elkus and Burke, 1. 13
Kem, Design: Tools of the Trade, 63. 14
DOD, Commander’s Appreciation and Campaign Design (CACD), 8. 15
Ibid, 8. 16
Ibid, 9. 17
JP 5-0, IV-2. 18
Ibid, IV-4.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
36
19
Ibid, IV-8. 20
Ibid, III-29. 21
Reilly, 9. 22
Reilly, 12. 23
Kem, Campaign Planning: Tools of the Trade, 15. 24
Ibid, 15. 25
Ibid, 38. 26
Ibid, 43. 27
DOD, FM-Interim 5-2 Design, iv. 28
Banach and Ryan, 114. 29
Ibid, 114. 30
General Tommy R. Franks, American Soldier, 527. 31
Colonel John A. Warden III, “The Enemy as a System,” Airpower Journal, Obtained from the Airpower Journal
website at www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj95/spr95_files/warden.htm. 32
Mattis, 1. 33
Ibid, Attachment 1, 3-5. 34
Ibid, Attachment 1, 4. 35
JP 5-0, IV-8. 36
Mattis, “USFJCOM Commander’s Guidance for Effects-Based Operations,” reprinted in Joint Campaign
Planning AY10 Coursebook, 113. 37
Personal interview with USAF Major Richard E. McGlamory, Conducted March 6th, 2010. 38
Dr. Joe Strange and Richard Iron, “Understanding Centers of Gravity and Critical Vulnerabilities,” Obtained from
the Air University website at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/cog1.pdf, 7. 39
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, edited and translated by J.J. Graham, 11. 40
Robert A. Pape, Bombing to Win, 58. 41
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, edited and translated by Michael Eliot Howard and Peter Paret, 595-596. 42
Reilly, 26. 43
Joint Advanced Warfighting School, “Mission Analysis and Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational
Environment (JIPOE) and Intelligence Preparation of the Information Environment,” reprinted in Joint Campaign
Planning AY10 Coursebook, 45. 44
JP 5-0, IV-5. 45
DOD, FM 5-0 Army Planning and Orders Production, 4-7. 46
JP 5-0, III-21. 47
Ibid, III-20, III-21. 48
Pape, 58. 49
Reilly, 1. 50
Mattis, “Vision for a Joint Approach to Operational Design,” Attachment, 2. 51
Reilly, 11. 52
Clausewitz, On War, edited and translated by J.J. Graham, 11.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
37
Bibliography
Banach, Stefan J. and Dr. Alex Ryan. “The Art of Design: A Design Methodology.” Military
Review. March-April 2009.
Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Edited and translated by J.J. Graham. USA: BN Publishing, 2007.
Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Edited and translated by Michael Eliot Howard and Peter Paret.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984.
Department of Defense, Commander’s Appreciation and Campaign Design, 28 January 2008.
Eikmeier, Dale C., Col. “A Logical Method for Center of Gravity Analysis.” Military Review. July-
August 2004.
Elkus, Adam and Crispin Burke. “Operational Design: Promise and Problems.” Obtained from
the Small Wars Journal website: www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-
temp/362-elkus.pdf (accessed 3 February 2010).
Joint Advanced Warfighting School. “Mission Analysis and Joint Intelligence Preparation of the
Operational Environment (JIPOE) and Intelligence Preparation of the Information
Environment (IPIE).” In Joint Campaign Planning AY10 Coursebook, edited by Sharon
McBride, 33-48. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, January 2010.
Kem, Dr. Jack D. Campaign Planning: Tools of the Trade, Third Edition. Fort Leavenworth, KS:
US Army Command and General Staff College Press, March 2009.
Kem, Dr. Jack D. Design: Tools of the Trade. Fort Leavenworth, KS: US Army Command and
General Staff College Press, May 2009.
Field Manual (FM) 3-0. Operations. Washington, DC: US Department of the Army, February
2008.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
38
FM 5-0. Army Planning and Orders Production. Washington, DC: US Department of the Army,
January 2005.
FM-Interim 5-2 (draft). Design. Washington, DC: US Department of the Army, 20 February
2009.
Franks, Tommy R. American Soldier. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 2004.
Joint Publication (JP) 3-0. Joint Operations. Washington, DC: US Department of Defense, 17
September 2006, Change 1 (13 February 2008).
JP 5-0. Joint Operation Planning. Washington, DC: US Department of Defense, 26 December
2006.
Mattis, James N. Memorandum for US Joint Forces Command. “Vision for a Joint Approach to
Operational Design.” Norfolk, VA: US Joint Forces Command, 6 October 2009. Obtained
from the JFCOM website at
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2009/aod_2009.pdf (accessed 10 January
2010).
Mattis, James N. “USJFCOM Commander’s Guidance for Effects-Based Operations.” In Joint
Campaign Planning AY10 Coursebook, edited by Sharon McBride, 111-115. Maxwell AFB,
AL: Air University Press, January 2010.
Pape, Robert A. Bombing to Win, Air Power and Coercion in War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press, 1996.
Reilly, Dr. Jeffrey M. Operational Design: Shaping Decision Analysis through Cognitive Vision.
Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, October 2008.
AU/ACSC/DICKENS/AY10
39
Strange, Dr. Joe and Richard Iron. “Understanding Centers of Gravity and Critical Vulnerabilities.”
Obtained from the Air University website at www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/cog1.pdf
(accessed 10 Dec 2009).
Training and Doctrine Command Pamphlet 525-5-500. Commander’s Appreciation and Campaign
Design. Fort Monroe, VA: US Department of the Army, 28 January 2008.
Warden, John A., III. “The Enemy as a System.” Airpower Journal, Spring 1995. Obtained from the
Airpower Journal website at
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj95/spr95_files/warden.htm (accessed 11
Mar 2010).