Operational Level Interdiction: Joint or Dis-Jointed Operations?
David C. Fowles
Abstract
David C. Fowles
Abstract
Successful interdiction operations are critical to the achievement of the Joint Force Commander's operational objectives and can significantly affect the outcome of war. Joint Pub 3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations, defines interdiction as an action that diverts, disrupts, delays, or destroys the enemy's surface military potential before it can be used effectively against friendly forces. Joint Pub 3-0 also states that when interdiction is synchronized with maneuver, it “provides one of the most dynamic concepts available to the joint force.” Joint interdiction, due to its significant impact upon the outcome of theater operations, its inherently joint nature at the operational level of war, and its challenging coordination requirements, is the focus of this monograph. Many elements of the joint force can conduct interdiction operations. Joint Pub 3-03, Doctrine for Joint Interdiction Operations, states that “all subordinate commanders possess resources that can contribute to interdiction. The capabilities of all joint forces...must be considered in planning and conducting interdiction.” Although all forces can contribute to the interdiction effort, Joint Pub 3-0 clearly establishes the joint force air component commander (JFACC) as “the supported commander for the JFC's overall interdiction effort.” The purpose then of this examination is to provide some answers to the research question: How can the U.S. Army support the JFACC in his role as the supported commander for the JFC's overall interdiction effort? The methodology used to address the research question will consist of two parts. The first part will examine joint interdiction during the Gulf War and how well Army capabilities were integrated into the interdiction effort of that war. The second part will be a comparison of Army and Air Force interdiction doctrine to approved joint interdiction doctrine. It will compare the Army's keystone doctrinal manuals, FM 100-5, Operations, and FM 100-7, The Amy in Theater Operations, and Air Force Manual 1-1, Basic Aerospace Doctrine of the United States Air Force, with joint interdiction doctrine as outlined in Joint Pub 3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations. Joint Pub 3-0 will serve as the standard for this comparison due to its nature as the keystone joint publication and because it is the only approved joint publication that addresses interdiction operations. This examination will demonstrate the integration of Army capabilities into the joint interdiction effort during the Gulf War and the support of current joint interdiction doctrine by Army interdiction doctrine.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Successful interdiction operations are critical to the achievement of the Joint Force Commander's operational objectives and can significantly affect the outcome of war. Joint Pub 3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations, defines interdiction as an action that diverts, disrupts, delays, or destroys the enemy's surface military potential before it can be used effectively against friendly forces. Joint Pub 3-0 also states that when interdiction is synchronized with maneuver, it “provides one of the most dynamic concepts available to the joint force.” Joint interdiction, due to its significant impact upon the outcome of theater operations, its inherently joint nature at the operational level of war, and its challenging coordination requirements, is the focus of this monograph. Many elements of the joint force can conduct interdiction operations. Joint Pub 3-03, Doctrine for Joint Interdiction Operations, states that “all subordinate commanders possess resources that can contribute to interdiction. The capabilities of all joint forces...must be considered in planning and conducting interdiction.” Although all forces can contribute to the interdiction effort, Joint Pub 3-0 clearly establishes the joint force air component commander (JFACC) as “the supported commander for the JFC's overall interdiction effort.” The purpose then of this examination is to provide some answers to the research question: How can the U.S. Army support the JFACC in his role as the supported commander for the JFC's overall interdiction effort? The methodology used to address the research question will consist of two parts. The first part will examine joint interdiction during the Gulf War and how well Army capabilities were integrated into the interdiction effort of that war. The second part will be a comparison of Army and Air Force interdiction doctrine to approved joint interdiction doctrine. It will compare the Army's keystone doctrinal manuals, FM 100-5, Operations, and FM 100-7, The Amy in Theater Operations, and Air Force Manual 1-1, Basic Aerospace Doctrine of the United States Air Force, with joint interdiction doctrine as outlined in Joint Pub 3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations. Joint Pub 3-0 will serve as the standard for this comparison due to its nature as the keystone joint publication and because it is the only approved joint publication that addresses interdiction operations. This examination will demonstrate the integration of Army capabilities into the joint interdiction effort during the Gulf War and the support of current joint interdiction doctrine by Army interdiction doctrine.
Key concepts: Interdiction, Joint (building), Military doctrine, Doctrine, Computer security, Operations research, Adversary, Computer science