JP 3-33, Joint Task Force Headquarters - Defense Innovation ...

Annex A to Appendix A
g. If the mission requires joint operations, what level of joint HQ is required current JTF
level, a higher joint HQ, or a subordinate JTF?
h. If a current-level JTF is most appropriate, should the existing JTF continue
operations with a revised mission or should it be replaced by a new JTF?
i. If the mission does not require joint operations, what Service component is most
suited to assume the mission (i.e., will future operations be primarily land, air, or maritime in
nature)?
j. Do circumstances and analysis indicate that a CCMD staff directorate can manage a
long-term program to achieve the desired end state rather than committing a separate joint or
Service HQ?
k. Do circumstances and analysis indicate that a multinational HQ could be the best
option?
4. Once the establishing authority has approved a C2 HQ option, the existing CJTF and staff
should continue planning accordingly.
a. If the existing JTF will continue long-term operations, then planning and other joint
processes will continue as they would for any other operation. Examples of the many
potential areas where changes may need to occur quickly include the following:
(1) Joint force task organization.
(2) JOA and other operational area boundaries.
(3) Relationships with supporting commands.
(4) Relationships with interorganizational partners.
(5) JTF HQ augmentation.
(6) JTF training requirements.
(7) LNOs to and from other organizations.
(8) Basing requirements.
(9) HN support.
(10) Operational limitations (constraints and restraints).
b. If the decision is to transition to another C2 HQ option for permanent operations, the
specific nature of transition actions will vary based on the nature of future operations and
what type of C2 HQ will assume responsibilities. For example, transitioning to a long-term
security cooperation program managed by the CCMD should be much complicated than
A-A-2 JP 3-33