Happy 2012... now here's some new terms you'll need for your OER this year!

I had a moment last week at the Penthouse while we were working on the new FM 3-04, Army Aviation Operations. I’d just found out that full spectrum operations was being stricken from use in doctrine and terminology, and I was fielding a bunch of emails about the lexicon changes, and getting really mad about it. People kept asking me if we were going to change the name of the Full Spectrum CAB, and I wanted to tell them that I would get right on that as soon as the Army promoted me to Major General, gave me my very own parking spot, a lifetime supply of pickles and vodka (and chocolate), and the complete authority to rename all combat aviation brigades with silly names.

Because I would call them all things like Daniel Craig Aviation Brigade.

Or Sam Worthington Aviation Brigade.

Or Jimmy Choo Peep Toe Red Python Slingbacks Aviation Brigade.

Or Vodka Aviation Brigade.

This will likely happen around the same time as never. Instead I typed polite email responses in a very authoritative and irritated manner, leaving the F-key embedded in my desk top.

Words have meaning. Aviation knows this better than any other branch of the service, given our propensity towards brevity codes that only the Air Force knows (because we refuse to pay attention to that stuff), execution checklists for Air Assaults (which no one pays attention to until someone f*cks up), and various numerously-lined attack briefs that are tucked into the pocket-sized, no-rip pages of the JFIRE MTTP (where the Infantry mistakes CCA for CAS every gottdamm time). We are a branch of words, ones that we value very closely because they describe exactly how we do what it is that we do… which we do well… until we screw it up… then we can make up fancy words to blame someone else.

Here is the long and short of the new changes for terminology in the 2012 (which will probably change again in five or six months anyway, so I wouldn’t even bother if I were you):

FSO is dead. Long live FSO? It should come as no surprise that Full Spectrum Operations is entirely gone from the lexicon now.

I’ll give you a moment to mourn its passing… *sniffle*… okay, moment over.

Briefly, when ADP 3-0 was first published in April 2011, full spectrum operations lingered as collective term for the simultaneous application of offense, defense, and defense support of civil authorities in support of the Army’s new operating concept: unified land operations. At that same moment, the world of the Army was awash in 10-page little ACU-covered books talking about our new operating concept. Suddenly, the AUSA convention looked like a rally for ACU-clad field grade officers clutching the ADP 3-0 like they were the second coming of communist students toting their little red books. Then, at the trailing end of 2011, full spectrum operations was stricken from use completely, and is now replaced with decisive action.

Conversely, we’d all like to know if there will be a discussion in the Change 1 of ADP 3-0 that also discusses indecisive action as well.

Oh, and if you’re wondering what will happen to 101^st Combat Aviation Brigade now that it can no longer thrust the name “Full Spectrum CAB” aloft like a mighty battle sword, I wouldn’t fret too much about it. I mean, we could just do something radical, and simply call it a CAB.

DSCA Dancing into 2012! Defense support of civil authorities (DSCA) is replacing civil support, which is just bringing us online with the joint community. It’s a one-for-one swap. I can’t think of a single person that would have a problem with using the phrase civil support, but sounds cool to say disc-kah. Try it. DISC-KAH. You can say it twice in a row, if you feel so inclined. Disc-kah-disc-kah.

Ranging the Spectrum! So, with full spectrum operations going the way of the dodo, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the terms spectrum of conflict and operational themes are also gone. I have only ever heard these terms from men who have far more rank and power than I could ever hope to have. I’m sure they will be heartbroken about it, but *shrug* meh, whatevs. Not that these were ever formally defined in Army doctrine, but these buzz phrases have come to mean varying things and have been causing confusion since they were conceived. Kind of like the platypus. The joint community uses the phrase the range of military operations, which is well defined in joint doctrine regarding our operational environment and current conflicts. I’m sure there is someone who is very concerned about this. I’m sure he also got an OER bullet for it.

Do you remember any of this?
Oh, that's right. You were sleeping
in the back of the classroom in a puddle
of your own drool.

Speaking of Operational Environment… Operational environment now replaces the term battlespace, which was frequently misused as a synonym for area of operations. Battlespace is an obsolete term, until we start fighting in space against the alien zombie space hookers from another galaxy. Further, operational environment is not synonymous with area of operation (like how CCA is not synonymous with CAS), just in case the Aviation Captains’ Career Course crowd was wondering.  Operational environment does not refer to a piece of ground denoted by boundaries and assigned to a unit, nor does it refer to the security environment at large. Just in case you forgot, or you were too hungover that day in the advanced course.

Mission Command, commanding the mission, and the Commander. Mission command replaced the Army doctrinal term command and control. The former command and control warfighting function is also now called the mission command warfighting function. Are you confused yet? Don’t worry, you will be. The function of command and the function of control are still valid for the Army (as they have always been), but not when combined into a single phrase or function. So, when discussing Army operations command and control (or C2) is an obsolete term. But, in case you’ve been delving into the joint doctrine recently, you should be advised that the joint community still uses command and control and C2 in their lexicon. NOW I WILL CONFUSE YOU EVEN MORE! The term battle command is also rescinded. This obsolete term had several different definitions over the past two decades and often was misused as a synonym for command and control, kind of like misusing full spectrum operations all the gottdamm time. The commander’s role in the operations process (the way he or she understands, visualizes, describes, directs, leads and assesses their mission in PowerPoint slides) remains in Army doctrine but is no longer referred to as battle command. It’s referred to as mission command now. Hence mission command is now both a warfighting function and a process of leadership.

I’ll give you a moment to digest all that. The Doctrinatrix needs a drink.

Campaigning for jointness (or: Doobie is a joint term)! The Army does not conduct campaigns, except for that suicide prevention "campaign" that dragged us on a 1.5 mile run at a 15:00 min/mile pace at 4:30 in the morning in order to "raise morale." Joint doctrine is very specific on the topic of who does campaigns. Joint force headquarters plan and execute campaigns and major operations, while the Service components (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) of the joint force conduct subordinate major operations (with lots of angry, disgruntled Majors), battles and engagements, but not independent campaigns. This is straight from the JP 5-0, Joint Operation Planning.  Army plans that span a significant period are simply long-range plans, or land wars in Asia.

And, finally… ISR’we or aren’t we? In Army doctrine, the term intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) is obsolete, and Army doctrine does not use this term or acronym to describe Army operations. The individual components will be spelled out… because Microsoft has autocorrect and spell check and you won’t have to worry about spelling reconnaissance wrong all the time. Army doctrine uses reconnaissance and surveillance (and Google) to refer to the collection of information (and porn). So, to sum it up, we don’t do ISR. To expand on this a little further, we also do not use the term armed reconnaissance to describe the use of attack reconnaissance helicopters or armed unmanned aircraft systems to accomplish reconnaissance missions. All reconnaissance is armed. Unless it’s unarmed. Then it’s just asking for trouble.

So, yeah, words do have meaning. Modifying nouns with trendy adjectives, such as full spectrum, full dimension, outstanding, distributed, agile, and dominant, rarely adds meaning. In fact, it never adds meaning. It’s filler. It causes everyone to feel inadequate to the task of reading it, like there should be some deep hidden meaning. In the past three years, full spectrum appeared—incorrectly—to modify almost anything to make it sound better, as an example. Full Spectrum Operations. Full Spectrum CAB. Full Spectrum Support. Full Spectrum Speculum.

Seriously? Haven’t we always been Full Spectrum? That phrase was never even meant what we thought it meant anyway. We kept thinking that it meant we could do tons of sh*t, but it really just means that we’re bright and colorful. Then again, at the rate we keep changing uniform patterns, we might just end up really being full spectrum after all.

So, Happy New Year from the All Fun Happens family! I just hope your publications accounts are ready for Change 2.0 for the ADP!