ALLIED JOINT PUBLICATION FOR OPERATIONS PLANNING (AJP 5) AS NEW CHALLENGES FOR MILITARY PLANNERS Ján Spišák Abstract: The successful planning of military operations requires clearly understood and widely accepted doctrine. It is particularly important for joint operations that are be conducted by multinational forces. With these ideas in mind the alliance doctrine s writers brought the new Allied Joint Publication (AJP) - 5 ratification draft Allied Joint Doctrine For Operational-Level Planning to be adopted, implemented and widely used by commanders and staff for planning of future military operations. The article deals with AJP-5 contribution to the theory of Operational art in terms of broader content of operations planning processes compared to the last version of AJP - 5 dated from 2006. Information mentioned in the article may serve as a source of knowledge and may be helpful for military professionals in the Armed Forces of the Czech Republic. Keywords: Doctrine, operations planning, operational art, operational design concepts, 1. Introduction Allied Joint Doctrine for Operational-Level Planning is intended primarily for use by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) military forces, and for NATO-led operations it may be used for operations conducted by a coalition of NATO members and/or partner nations. AJP - 5 is aimed mainly at commanders and staff members engaged in operational-level planning, employed in Joint Force Command Headquarters (JFC HQ) and Component Command Headquarters (CC HQ), yet is a valuable source of military thoughts and ideas exploitable for military professionals working at lower levels of command. At its core it describes the fundamental aspects of planning joint operations at the operational level. Doctrine AJP - 5 is going to be a part of NATO s operations planning architecture. It stipulates an overarching framework of the key planning principles, considerations and process steps that are followed in operational-level planning. Identically to its predecessor, Allied Joint Doctrine For Operational Planning AJP - 5 (2006), this doctrinal publication reflects a linkage to the capstone Allied Joint Doctrine publication Allied Joint Doctrine (AJP - 01) and the NATO keystone doctrinal publications Allied Joint Doctrine for the Conduct of Operations (AJP-3), the Allied Joint Doctrine for Logistics (AJP - 4), and a few others on this hierarchy level. [1] 2. Doctrinal contribution Doctrine is much more comprehensive in terms of explaining key functions of the Operational-Level Framework at the operational level, which assist the Joint Force Commander (JFC) in planning and execution of military operations. These functions Shape, Engage, Exploit, Protect and Sustain help the commander visualise how major operations, battles and engagements relate to one another within the overall campaign. There are added planning principles which this AJP - 5 introduced as an aspect of solid operational thinking of military planners that they must adopt. There is also 99
deeper and more logical explanation of particular planning Phases the planners apply to develop key operational documents such Operational design [2], Concept of Operation (CONOPS) [3] and Operation Plan (OPLAN) [4]. Enough space has been dedicated to analytical approaches within operational art in terms of traditional, systemic or design approach, expanding foundations for planning, command involvement, campaign process assessment and finally the nature of mission analysis at the operational level. All the operational design concepts (e.g. Centre of Gravity, End State, Decisive Conditions, Lines of Operations, Objective etc.) [5], that play decisive roles during Operational design development process are expanded in their theory and practical application for operations planning. The noticeable change is implied in the whole planning process at the JFC level in terms of its depiction. While the planning phases are still used at the strategic level, the planning steps of Operational-Level Planning Process are established for this level. This seems to be a verbal challenge the military planners on specific levels of command will have to accustom themselves. The purpose of the article is not to describe all the changes and contribution of the new AJP - 5, rather to draw reader s attention to the principles that may be utilized at all military levels, basic definitions that are to be incorporated in NATO terminology publications, and the steps of the planning process in its logical flow. 3. Doctrinal Principles in Military Operations When planning for allied combined joint operations, planners must consider two groups of key principles. The first group relates to conduct of military operations as such and the second group are planning principles. Both of them may require different emphasis according to the operational situation they are applied to. Principles (of the first group) of allied joint and multinational operations e.g. Definition of Objectives, Unity of Purpose, Concentration of force, Economy of effort, Initiative, Security and others, are quoted in almost all publications of doctrinal hierarchy. Most of them are fundamental to planning; others comprise or describe principal conditions or constraints which the planning is subject to. Planning at all levels has to be conducted following these principles in order to successfully support the conduct of military operations. The second group of principles must be considered from the early beginning of operations planning effort. Key factors such operational environment, problem, end state, strategic and operational objectives are assessed. All of them affect Operational Design development and generate particular challenges for both military planners and civilian actors. Planning of operations should take into account the different aims and conditions of both Article 5 operations and non-article 5 crisis response operations (NA5CRO). NATO s operations planning should conform to the planning principles as following: a) Coherence. Every operational plan must positively contribute towards the accomplishment of an approved higher level set objectives for addressing the crisis. The planning process is also coherent internally, as well as externally with other actors. b) Comprehensive Understanding of the Operational Environment. Achieving the desired strategic and operational outcomes must be understood at all levels during the planning and conduct of operations. The commanders must build and foster a shared comprehensive understanding of the operational environment. c) Mutual Respect, Trust, Transparency and Understanding. Planning of operations in support of NATO s contribution to comprehensive approach is underpinned by a culture of 100
mutual respect, trust, transparency and understanding. Trust is built through information sharing and practical cooperation and must be encouraged to allow collaboration and cooperation across NATO bodies and with relevant non-nato actors and local authorities. d) Consultation and Compatible Planning. Mutually supportive, compatible, and wherever possible, concerted and harmonised planning is fundamental for the success of a comprehensive approach. OPLANs must meet the politically agreed level of interaction with external civil and military actors. Planners should establish mechanisms and procedures to support early shared situational awareness which will contribute to compatible planning. e) Efficient Use of Resources. Planners should achieve a balance between tasks and resources. Decision makers should be aware of the risk if an operation is not adequately resourced prior to approval of a strategic OPLAN. Planners must allow both military and non-military contributions to focus on and leverage their fundamental competencies within the international response to the crisis. f) Flexibility and Adaptability. The operations planning process should be flexible enough to adjust to evolving political guidance, civil and military advice needed to facilitate collaborative planning and adapt to political requirements, and also agile enough to allow the plan to evolve. The planning process should, on a regular basis, allow reviewing and assessing the mission and to modify or tailor plans when necessary to reach the desired end state. [6] 4. Definitions are established Contrary to US Armed forces doctrinal publications that widely use this new term for years, AJP - 5 is the first Allied doctrine that has stipulated and defined the term Operations Planning as follows: The planning of military operations at the strategic, operational and/or tactical levels. The preferred English term to designate the planning of military operations at all levels for military planners is operations planning. It is necessary to mention the previous term operational planning is not to be used anymore to prevent confusion with operational-level planning. [7] Operational-Level Planning is defined by AJP - 5 as military planning at the operational level to design, conduct and sustain campaigns and major operations in order to accomplish strategic objectives within given theatres or areas of operation. [8] Operational-level planning translates strategic objectives into tactical actions. It is obviously conducted for the employment of more than one service (within NATO more than one nation) and must incorporate perspectives from the strategic and tactical levels, as well as considerations of civilian actors when these are considered necessary for comprehensive planning activities. 4.1. Operations planning Operations planning serves for several purposes. This is an integral part of preparing the Alliance to meet any future operational challenges. Operations planning can also prepare the Alliance for a possible future requirement to conduct crisis response operations. Planning is also a learning activity that promotes the shared situational awareness and understanding of the commander and staff. The terms operations planning and operational-level planning are used extensively throughout AJP - 5. To avoid ambiguity in understanding related expressions there are important NATO agreed definitions that guide and give the right direction for planners. Commanders and staff members at the strategic, operational and tactical level should adopt and grasp them for use in the planning effort. 4.2. Operation Operation is defined as a military action or the carrying out of a strategic, tactical, service, training, or administrative military 101
mission; the process of carrying on combat, including movement, supply, attack, defence and manoeuvres needed to gain the objectives of any battle or campaign. [9] (This term, therefore, must be understood as neutral regarding the level of planning). 4.3. Operational Level Operational level is defined as the level at which campaigns and major operations are planned, conducted and sustained to accomplish strategic objectives within theatres or areas of operations. [10] (This term affords appropriate differentiation). 4.4. Operational Art It is necessary to accent the role of Operational art. Doctrinal publication NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions (AAP 6) defines Operational art as The employment of forces to attain strategic and/or operational objectives through the design, organization, integration and conduct of strategies, campaigns, major operations and battles. [11] (Within the planning process at the operational level, operational art can be described as the component of military art concerned with the theory and practice of planning, preparing, conducting, and sustaining campaigns and major operations aimed at accomplishing strategic or operational objectives in a given theatre.) [12] Simply told through Operational art, strategic objectives are converted into tactical activity in order to achieve a desired outcome. While the AJP - 5 (2006) states that no specific level of command is solely concerned with operational art, [13] the new version is not so unequivocal or persuasive: Operational art bears various meanings during the operational-level planning process, particularly in developing the operational design. [14] From this point is not easy to ascertain whether doctrinal writers have stayed on the same platform as the previous one. If not, it could bring some doubts about the traditional role and place of Operational art. Operational art is the critical link between strategy and tactics. Strategy guides operational art by determining the ultimate objectives to be accomplished and by allocating the necessary resources. Strategy defines and imposes limitations on the use of combat forces to be successful, campaigns or major operations must be conducted within a framework of what is operationally and strategically possible. Due to this critical link between strategy and tactics, if operational art is poorly applied, no acceptable strategic ends can be achieved successfully. 5. Planning at different levels The NATO Crisis Management Process (NCMP) generally comprises six phases that are reflected and described in Allied Command Operations (ACO) Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive (COPD). Due to the requirements for the separate approval of CONOPS and OPLAN, Phase 4 (at the strategic, operational and tactical level) is further divided into Phase 4a and Phase 4b as depicted in Figure 1. 102
Figure 1 Strategic and Operational level Crisis Response Planning in COPD [15] In terms of planning activities on strategic and operation levels there are the following successive phases in COPD: Phase 1 Situational awareness Phase 2 Operational Appreciation of Saceur s Strategic Assessment and Assessment of Military Response Options Phase 3 Operational Orientation Phase 4a Operational CONOPS Development Phase 4b Operation Plan Development Phase 5 Execution/Campaign Assessment/OPLAN Review Phase 6 Transition 6. Operational-Level Planning Process Description (OLPP). The OLPP is developed to support JFC and his staff in conducting operational-level planning. The steps presented can be rearranged and/or phased by the strategic commander (SC) to fit the planning circumstances, such as complexity or time constraints. While the Phases on the Strategic level are fully identical in its content in both publications (COPD and AJP 5), there is a difference on the Operational level from the new AJP - 5 perspectives. Figure 2 Steps in OLPP in AJP 5 [16] 103
The OLPP consists of the 8 steps to support a JFC and his staff in order to develop the operational level OPLAN including the conduct of the operational estimate process. The steps also comprise the campaign and operational assessment during execution in order to review or revise the plan, when required. These OLPP steps are: Step 1 - Initiation of the OLPP Step 2 - Problem and Mission Analysis Step 3 - Course of action (COA) development Step 4 - COA analysis Step 5 - COA validation and comparison Step 6 - Commander s COA decision Step 7 - Operational-level CONOPS and OPLAN development Step 8 - Campaign assessment and plan review/revision 7. Comparison and Explanation Phases and Steps According to COPD, the Situational Awareness (SA) functions a separate Phase contrary to the new AJP-5 where it is in position of an ongoing process of gathering information throughout the operation, which is logical. This means, it is not listed as a separate phase or the so-called STEP. It is worth mentioning that SA process has remained on SACEUR s level as a separate phase. Otherwise, the content of other steps in AJP - 5 is essentially identical to the activities in particular phases of COPD: Step 1 - Operational Orientation = Phase 2 Operational Appreciation of SACEUR's Strategic Assessment and Assessment of Military Response Options. Step 2 - Problem and Mission Analysis = Phase 3 Operational Orientation Steps: Step 3 - Courses of Action Development, Step 4 - Courses of Action Analysis, Step 5 - Courses of Action Comparison and Validation and Step 6 - Commander's Courses of Action Decision, according to AJP - 5, are associated only with Course of Action (COA) elaboration until the Commander's approval of selected COA has been made, without already "working" on the CONOPS, which is typical activity in COPD. Previously, including the development of CONOPS, it was characteristic within the content of Phase 4 - Operational CONOPS development. Step 7 - Operational-Level CONOPS and Plan development, however, incorporates this Phase 4a and thus contains also Phase 4b - Operational Plan Development. Step 8 - Campaign Assessment and Plan Review / Revision is not already addressed to conduct of the operation contrary to COPD, nevertheless this step is identical to Phase 5 - (Execution), Campaign Assessment / OPLAN Review. What is a remarkable in AJP-5 is that the Transition Phase is not depicted as a separate activity. Transition activities are included in Step 8, while in COPD are covered through a separate Phase 6 - Transition. Generally, planning activities in AJP - 5 on the operational level are identical to COPD in its content although they are not depicted in the same way externally. 8. Conclusion Even though not adopted yet, the new AJP - 5 ratification draft is on the road to being ratified and implemented. It may happen that the meaning of operational planning will not soon become obsolete in several months or even a few weeks. There are enough military planners still accustomed to understanding operational planning in its former sense. In order to prepare for and conduct military operations it is necessary to read and study all relevant publications applicable to the efficient and successful planning and conduct of operations. Although content of the article doesn t cover all relevant issues and aspects of operations planning theory it warns about differences between basic planning doctrines and documents that are important for military planners. The new AJP - 5 doctrine is a valuable source of information 104
not only for commanders and planners, but also for students in career courses, academics and all others interested in military issues. References [1] AJP-5, Allied Joint Doctrine for Operational-Level Planning (ratification draft 2). NATO Standardization Agency, 2012, p. x. [2] Operational Design develops and refines a commander s operational ideas to provide detailed, executable plans. It is underpinned by a clear understanding of the political and strategic context together with an effective framing of the problem. Structured processes, like the operational design concepts and related tools enable the operational design development. See AJP-5 p. 2-26. [3] CONOPS - a clear and concise statement of the line of action chosen by a commander in order to accomplish his given mission. See AAP-6, p. 66. [4] Operation plan (OPLAN) - a plan for a single or series of connected operations to be carried out simultaneously or in succession. It is usually based upon stated assumptions and is the form of directive employed by higher authority to permit subordinate commanders to prepare supporting plans and orders. See AAP-6, p. 156. [5] For better understanding of operational design concepts see e.g. AJP-5, p. 2-26 2-40. [6] AJP-5, p. 1-4 1-6. [7] AJP-5, p. 1-13. [8] AJP-5 p. 1-13. [9] AAP-6, NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions (English and French). NATO Standardization Agency. NATO Headquarters B - 1110 Brussels, Belgium. 2012, p. 154. [10] AAP-6, p. 155. [11] AAP-6, p. 155. [12] AJP-5, p. 2-3. [13] AJP-5, Allied Joint Doctrine for Operational Planning. NATO Standardization Agency, 2006, p. 3-3. [14] AJP-5, Allied Joint Doctrine for Operational-Level Planning (ratification draft 2). NATO Standardization Agency, 2012, p. 2-4. [15] ALLIED COMMAND OPERATIONS. Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive. Trial version, Supreme Headquarters Allied Power Europe, Belgium, 2010, p. 4-2. [16] AJP-5, p. 3-63. 105