SEJPME MODULE 6
This module focuses on the elements of military operations, the differences between types of operations, and
how a balance of operations and operation phasing guides campaign execution.
This module covers:
Joint employment of air, land, sea, and special operations forces (or SOFs) capabilities across all phases
Range of military operations (engagement, crisis response and limited contingencies, major operations,
and campaigns), and
Joint task force (or JTF) operational transitions
The content presented in this module is based on JP 3.0 Joint Operations, 2011. To view a copy of the
publication, click the Resources button at the bottom of the screen.
Less than a month after the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes against the United States, the U.S. responded
with Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF), major U.S. combat operations designed to topple the Taliban
government and destroy al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
As part of OEF, in early March 2002, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) launched Operation ANACONDA
in the Shahikot Valley of eastern Afghanistan. This operation was to become widely regarded as a good
example of a complex joint operation ANACONDA brought together all U.S. components from land, sea, and
SOF. The operation required detailed planning, significant sustainment efforts, and a very complex C2
structure.
Then-CENTCOM Commander General Tommy Franks would later portray Operation ANACONDA as an
"absolute and unqualified success," but one in which the original U.S. military battle plan "didn’t survive first
contact with the enemy." How was this possible? The answer requires a brief overview of the operation, starting
with the objective.
Operation ANACONDA was designed to root out enemy Taliban and al-Qaeda forces regrouping in the
Shahikot Valley following their earlier defeats in the initial three months of the war in Afghanistan.
In order to achieve this goal, U.S. commanders crafted a complex and sophisticated battle plan involving a
hammer and anvil attack by U.S. and friendly Afghan ground forces into the valley.
This battle plan unraveled on the first day when enemy resistance proved fiercer than originally anticipated and
friendly Afghan forces failed to carry out their march into the valley, thereby leaving deployed U.S. infantry
forces to face the enemy alone. Success was achieved when U.S. forces switched tactical gears by calling on air
strikes, in larger numbers than originally planned, to work with the ground forces to suppress and destroy the
enemy.
Originally planned as a three-day battle with light combat, Operation ANACONDA escalated into a seven-day
battle with intense combat and was officially terminated only after 17 days. The operation, which lasted from
March 2-18, was successful because up to several hundred enemy fighters were killed and the rest fled the
Shahikot Valley, leaving it in the control of U.S. and allied forces. U.S. casualties totaled eight military
personnel killed and over 50 wounded.
,Success was achieved because the U.S. military showed a capacity to adapt by employing joint operations and
modern information networks to surmount a surprising and difficult challenge. As a result, this battle was the
last time that year that enemy forces chose to engage U.S. forces in major combat in Afghanistan.
Lessons learned from Operation ANACONDA on intelligence estimates, U.S. command structure, reliance on
friendly Afghan forces, armament, and networked air-ground coordination of air strikes were addressed by the
U.S. military for future operations.
Topic 1
This lesson provides a solid foundation on how military operations are defined, what forms they take, and what
phases define their execution.
This lesson covers:
Definitions for military operations
Types of military operations
Definition of joint operations phases and how they are implemented, and the
Phased approach to conducting joint operations
The content presented in this lesson is based on multiple Joint Publications, which may be accessed by clicking
the Resources button at the bottom of the screen.
The definitions provided in this topic form a basis for understanding the differences between military operations
and joint operations.
This topic covers:
Definitions for military operations
Principles of joint operations, and the
Simultaneous nature of theater operations
Military operations vary in scope, purpose, and conflict intensity across a range that extends from military
engagement, security cooperation, and deterrence activities to crisis response and limited contingency
operations and, if necessary, to major operations and campaigns.
Our national leaders can use the military instrument of national power across the conflict continuum in a wide
variety of operations that are commonly characterized into these three groups.
Some military operations are associated with crisis response and limited contingencies, such as humanitarian
assistance.
Some, such as Operation RESTORE HOPE in Somalia, can be extremely dangerous requiring combat
operations to protect U.S. forces while accomplishing the mission.
"Joint operations" is a general term used to describe military actions conducted by joint forces or by Service
forces employed under command relationships.
Use of joint capabilities in military engagement, security cooperation, and deterrence activities helps shape the
operational environment and keep the day-to-day tensions between nations or groups below the threshold of
armed conflict while maintaining U.S. global influence.
, The nature of the strategic security environment may require U.S. forces to engage in several types of joint
operations simultaneously across a range of military operations.
For these missions, commanders combine and sequence offensive, defensive, and stability operations and
activities to achieve objectives.
Combatant commanders (or CCDRs) should pay particular attention to synchronizing and integrating the
activities of assigned, attached, and supporting forces through subordinate and support joint force commanders
(or JFCs) to achieve national, theater, and multinational strategic objectives.
Topic 2
This topic defines some of the military operations that may be part of joint operations.
This topic covers:
What constitutes a military operation, and
Descriptions of military operations participating in joint operations, from stability operations to
homeland defense
In general, a military operation is a set of actions intended to accomplish a task or mission.
Although the U.S. military is organized, trained, and equipped for sustained, large-scale combat anywhere in the
world, the capabilities to conduct these operations also enable a wide variety of other operations.
In the next two pages, we'll review definitions used in military operations.
"Stability operations" is an umbrella term for various military missions, tasks, and activities conducted outside
the U.S. in coordination with other instruments of national power to:
Maintain or reestablish a safe and secure environment, and
Provide essential governmental services, emergency infrastructure reconstruction, and humanitarian
relief
"Civil support" refers to DoD support to U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies and for designated law
enforcement and other activities.
"Foreign humanitarian assistance" refers to DoD activities, normally in support of the United States Agency for
International Development or the Department of State, conducted outside the U.S., its territories, and
possessions, to relieve or reduce human suffering, disease, hunger, or privation.
"Recovery" is an operation to search for, locate, identify, recover, and return isolated personnel, human remains,
sensitive equipment, or items critical to national security.
"Non-combatant evacuation" is an operation to evacuate non-combatants and civilians from foreign countries to
safe havens or to the U.S. when their lives are endangered by war, civil unrest, or natural disaster.
"Peace operations" (or POs) is a category that encompasses operations to contain conflict, redress the peace, and
shape the environment to support reconciliation and rebuilding and facilitate the transition to legitimate
governance.
This module focuses on the elements of military operations, the differences between types of operations, and
how a balance of operations and operation phasing guides campaign execution.
This module covers:
Joint employment of air, land, sea, and special operations forces (or SOFs) capabilities across all phases
Range of military operations (engagement, crisis response and limited contingencies, major operations,
and campaigns), and
Joint task force (or JTF) operational transitions
The content presented in this module is based on JP 3.0 Joint Operations, 2011. To view a copy of the
publication, click the Resources button at the bottom of the screen.
Less than a month after the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes against the United States, the U.S. responded
with Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF), major U.S. combat operations designed to topple the Taliban
government and destroy al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
As part of OEF, in early March 2002, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) launched Operation ANACONDA
in the Shahikot Valley of eastern Afghanistan. This operation was to become widely regarded as a good
example of a complex joint operation ANACONDA brought together all U.S. components from land, sea, and
SOF. The operation required detailed planning, significant sustainment efforts, and a very complex C2
structure.
Then-CENTCOM Commander General Tommy Franks would later portray Operation ANACONDA as an
"absolute and unqualified success," but one in which the original U.S. military battle plan "didn’t survive first
contact with the enemy." How was this possible? The answer requires a brief overview of the operation, starting
with the objective.
Operation ANACONDA was designed to root out enemy Taliban and al-Qaeda forces regrouping in the
Shahikot Valley following their earlier defeats in the initial three months of the war in Afghanistan.
In order to achieve this goal, U.S. commanders crafted a complex and sophisticated battle plan involving a
hammer and anvil attack by U.S. and friendly Afghan ground forces into the valley.
This battle plan unraveled on the first day when enemy resistance proved fiercer than originally anticipated and
friendly Afghan forces failed to carry out their march into the valley, thereby leaving deployed U.S. infantry
forces to face the enemy alone. Success was achieved when U.S. forces switched tactical gears by calling on air
strikes, in larger numbers than originally planned, to work with the ground forces to suppress and destroy the
enemy.
Originally planned as a three-day battle with light combat, Operation ANACONDA escalated into a seven-day
battle with intense combat and was officially terminated only after 17 days. The operation, which lasted from
March 2-18, was successful because up to several hundred enemy fighters were killed and the rest fled the
Shahikot Valley, leaving it in the control of U.S. and allied forces. U.S. casualties totaled eight military
personnel killed and over 50 wounded.
,Success was achieved because the U.S. military showed a capacity to adapt by employing joint operations and
modern information networks to surmount a surprising and difficult challenge. As a result, this battle was the
last time that year that enemy forces chose to engage U.S. forces in major combat in Afghanistan.
Lessons learned from Operation ANACONDA on intelligence estimates, U.S. command structure, reliance on
friendly Afghan forces, armament, and networked air-ground coordination of air strikes were addressed by the
U.S. military for future operations.
Topic 1
This lesson provides a solid foundation on how military operations are defined, what forms they take, and what
phases define their execution.
This lesson covers:
Definitions for military operations
Types of military operations
Definition of joint operations phases and how they are implemented, and the
Phased approach to conducting joint operations
The content presented in this lesson is based on multiple Joint Publications, which may be accessed by clicking
the Resources button at the bottom of the screen.
The definitions provided in this topic form a basis for understanding the differences between military operations
and joint operations.
This topic covers:
Definitions for military operations
Principles of joint operations, and the
Simultaneous nature of theater operations
Military operations vary in scope, purpose, and conflict intensity across a range that extends from military
engagement, security cooperation, and deterrence activities to crisis response and limited contingency
operations and, if necessary, to major operations and campaigns.
Our national leaders can use the military instrument of national power across the conflict continuum in a wide
variety of operations that are commonly characterized into these three groups.
Some military operations are associated with crisis response and limited contingencies, such as humanitarian
assistance.
Some, such as Operation RESTORE HOPE in Somalia, can be extremely dangerous requiring combat
operations to protect U.S. forces while accomplishing the mission.
"Joint operations" is a general term used to describe military actions conducted by joint forces or by Service
forces employed under command relationships.
Use of joint capabilities in military engagement, security cooperation, and deterrence activities helps shape the
operational environment and keep the day-to-day tensions between nations or groups below the threshold of
armed conflict while maintaining U.S. global influence.
, The nature of the strategic security environment may require U.S. forces to engage in several types of joint
operations simultaneously across a range of military operations.
For these missions, commanders combine and sequence offensive, defensive, and stability operations and
activities to achieve objectives.
Combatant commanders (or CCDRs) should pay particular attention to synchronizing and integrating the
activities of assigned, attached, and supporting forces through subordinate and support joint force commanders
(or JFCs) to achieve national, theater, and multinational strategic objectives.
Topic 2
This topic defines some of the military operations that may be part of joint operations.
This topic covers:
What constitutes a military operation, and
Descriptions of military operations participating in joint operations, from stability operations to
homeland defense
In general, a military operation is a set of actions intended to accomplish a task or mission.
Although the U.S. military is organized, trained, and equipped for sustained, large-scale combat anywhere in the
world, the capabilities to conduct these operations also enable a wide variety of other operations.
In the next two pages, we'll review definitions used in military operations.
"Stability operations" is an umbrella term for various military missions, tasks, and activities conducted outside
the U.S. in coordination with other instruments of national power to:
Maintain or reestablish a safe and secure environment, and
Provide essential governmental services, emergency infrastructure reconstruction, and humanitarian
relief
"Civil support" refers to DoD support to U.S. civil authorities for domestic emergencies and for designated law
enforcement and other activities.
"Foreign humanitarian assistance" refers to DoD activities, normally in support of the United States Agency for
International Development or the Department of State, conducted outside the U.S., its territories, and
possessions, to relieve or reduce human suffering, disease, hunger, or privation.
"Recovery" is an operation to search for, locate, identify, recover, and return isolated personnel, human remains,
sensitive equipment, or items critical to national security.
"Non-combatant evacuation" is an operation to evacuate non-combatants and civilians from foreign countries to
safe havens or to the U.S. when their lives are endangered by war, civil unrest, or natural disaster.
"Peace operations" (or POs) is a category that encompasses operations to contain conflict, redress the peace, and
shape the environment to support reconciliation and rebuilding and facilitate the transition to legitimate
governance.
