ISSUE 182 : Jul/Aug - 2010 - Australian Defence Force Journal

Letters to the EditorDear SirIn response to the Chairman’s invitation on page 4 of Issue No. 181, I offer the following commentsin respect to ‘JPME definitions’.I note the logic contained in the definitions of ‘Joint Military Training’ and ‘Military Training’ whencompared to the definition of ‘Training’. Each is understandably a subset of the other, such that thedefinition of ‘Military Training’ (competent performance of specific duties in war and peace) nestsneatly within the definition of ‘Training’ (effective performance in an activity or range of activities).This same logic appears absent in the given definitions of ‘PME’ and ‘JPME’ when compared tothe definition of ‘Education’. If we accept the given definition of ‘Education’ (knowledge, skills,moral values and understanding required in all aspects of life), then surely ‘Professional MilitaryEducation’ is a subset of this and JPME is yet a further subset of PME?Given the ADDP 7.0 definition of ‘Education’, then one would logically expect that the definitionof ‘Professional Military Education’ contained a phrase along the lines of ‘the knowledge, skills andattitudes required in all aspects of professional military life’. Such knowledge/attitudes may includean appreciation of typical military values sets (courage, loyalty, integrity etc) and an understandingof the difference between leadership, management and the very military concept of command.I would argue that the same logic should be applied to the definition of JPME such that it containeda phrase similar to ‘the knowledge, skills and attitudes required in all aspects of joint professionalmilitary life’.RegardsCMDR Peter KellyCurriculum and Assessment ManagerAustralian Command and Staff CollegeDear EditorIt is great to see doctrine and concepts being raised in the public arena (Dr Aaron Jackson’s articleon the need for an ADF Joint Warfare Studies Centre in Issue No. 181). While the article raises animportant and thought-provoking issue, it is impacted by a number of errors and omissions thatimpact the author’s argument.First, while the author acknowledges that there have been several joint operational concepts, hedoes not actually discuss what they are, how they were developed or analyse their value. Indeed, hesuggests concept development has been ‘limited in scope and vision’. This is an unusual suggestion.There have been two formal joint operational concepts—referred to as the Future Joint OperationalConcept (FJOC). The current version, ADDP D.3 ‘Joint Operations for the 21st Century’ (2007), is underreview, coordinated by Joint Coordination Capability in VCDF Group. The 2007 edition is effectively anupdate, providing small changes to the 2003 edition. There are also single-Service operating conceptsthat are aligned to FJOC.FJOC is one of the capstone documents in the ADF doctrine series and is endorsed by CDF. It identifieskey requirements for Defence. For example, both documents identify multi-dimensional manoeuvre,seamless force, networked enabled operations and an effects-based approach as the foundational2