Practical Sustainment Concepts for the Non-Linear Battlespace

sustainment picture. It will be necessary to look at streamlining the sustainment tasks,
because there continue to be many issues with the distribution and optimization of
support resources.
Conclusion
The current Canadian sustainment doctrine, while entirely relevant for the linear
battlefield, is based on a number of premises that are no longer applicable in a noncontiguous
battlespace such as in Afghanistan. First, the sustainment concept and
organizations are based on the ground and its assumed state of security. By virtue of
the time and space that are separating deployed elements on the battlefield,
sustainment organizations’ tasks, structure and chains of command are separated into
specific echelons that vary from the most secure areas of the battlefield, in the rear
where increased security permits the development of complex support infrastructure, to
the front where mobility and force protection limit the complexity of support possible.
Another premise is the availability of sustainment resources that can be dedicated to
each echelon, and that every subunit, unit and formation has a dedicated sustainment
organization. Finally, sustainment resources themselves are limited to specific,
specialized roles according to their organizational assignment. In the non-linear
environment of Afghanistan, the battlefield is based not on the ground but on the
establishment of secure nodes between which sustainment tasks are shared. Finally, in
order to facilitate the efficient use of resources, sustainment is best centralized under a
single chain of command.
However, in studying the non-linear environment, certain sustainment principles
remain valid, including the relationship between security and production and the
requirement to preserve the sustainment tasks. In the non-linear battlefield, these tasks
break down logically into those performed in nodes and links. It is shown that because
the nodes can provide areas of security equivalent to former rear echelons, numerous
lines of support can be applied in the same location, by the same resources to multiple
units, which increases the requirement for flexibility at both soldier and staff levels.
Because links tasks are conducted in insecure areas, they must be treated as deliberate
manoeuvre operations and coordinated along the Ops chain. . Central sustainment
coordination has become more complex, as Log Ops must literally plan from the
operational level all the way down to the individual soldier. Consequently, we see the
requirement for planning, intelligence and coordination capabilities where the
establishment has yet to develop them..
Sustainment in the non-linear environment is now based on a network concept of
support shared between secure nodes. These nodes have a certain hierarchy based on
the time and resources available at a given point and a rule of superior node dependency
can be established for planning. In this resource-based environment, we have shown
that resources can be assigned to separate units, but at the cost of more overall
resources and additional coordination at higher levels. This coordination has been
shown to be equivalent to that of fire support, as sustainment effects are now as
indistinctive as fire effects on a target. The FOO equivalent in the application of these
effects is the A3, which can provide punctual augmentation to a sustainment plan in
support of a manoeuvre plan.
This article is not intended to replace current doctrine, as the linear battlefield model
is still highly relevant to those environments. Rather, it seeks to add a non-linear
dimension to the current doctrine for those theatres such as Afghanistan, where the
linear model fails to describe the support concept. In the future, organizational planning
for deployments must consider the environment in which sustainment is to be executed,
and tailor the establishment, structure and equipment appropriately. It is hoped that this
Canadian Army Journal Vol. 11.2 Summer 2008 61