Joint Operating Concept (JOC) - GlobalSecurity.org

contextually different at each level of war and as such will be applied differently
by those operating at each level of war.
B. The Methods Used to Define IW. There have been many definitions for
IW proposed during the development
of this JOC. Each of these definitions
has focused on defining IW by who
conducts it (actors), how they
conduct it (methods), or why they
conduct it (strategic purpose).
What makes IW different is the focus
of its operations – a relevant
population – and its strategic purpose
– to gain or maintain control or
influence over, and support of, that
relevant population. In other words,
the focus is on the legitimacy of a
political authority to control or influence a relevant population.
The proposed definition of IW:
Actors
Methods
Strategic Purpose
- Non-nation state actors
- Westphalian view
- Irregular challenges from transnational
threats
- Indirect methods
- Non-traditional means
- Ends
- Credibility and Legitimacy
- Stakes are the people
• Exposes what is “different” or “irregular” about IW
• Underscores that the relevant population is the principal focus of IW
• Recognizes the role of non-state actors
• Deconflicts IW with extant doctrine without getting down to TTP level
• Does not exclude any of the IW activities listed in the Quadrennial
Defense Review IW Execution Roadmap
The purpose of IW, like any other form of warfare, is to win – to achieve the
strategic purpose of the war. Winning wars and campaigns involves the control
of forces, populations, and territory. Conventional or “traditional” 8 warfare is a
form of warfare between states that employs direct military confrontation to
defeat an adversary’s armed forces, destroy an adversary’s war-making capacity,
or seize or retain territory in order to force a change in an adversary’s
8
The National Defense Strategy of March 2005 and the subsequent QDR adopted the term
“traditional” to describe “recognized military capabilities and forces in well-understood forms of
military competition and conflict.” In practical terms, the term is interchangeable with the term
“conventional.” The problem with using the term “traditional” to describe these types of forces
and operations and this form of warfare is that these traditions stem from European-style armed
forces of the Industrial Age, whereas most military historians would describe “traditional”
warfare as being non-Western and pre-industrial in its origins – in other words, as irregular
warfare. The tradition of the US Army from its colonial roots until the early 20th century was as
a frontier constabulary engaged in irregular warfare against the native tribes of North America.
Only in the past 100 years has European-style warfighting become the US military tradition.
Nevertheless, this paper will remain consistent with the National Defense Strategy and the QDR
by using conventional and “traditional” as interchangeable terms.
7