By : Jared Donnelly and Jon Farley
Estimated read time : 7 Mins
“ First, if the concept [ Multi Domain ] is to be rightfully joint and multi-service, we need clearness and alliance in how we talk. ” General Stephen Townsend, US Army TRADOC Commander
“ Multi Domain ” is the word du jour of the defense enterprise. While there are batch of philosophic discussions on the future of war, the important negotiation regarding the definition of domains have been largely uninfluenced. There are a draw of smart people trying to wrap their heads around what this means for the use of forces, but much of this churn is presently wasted, as the refutation community does not have a basic definition for the parole “ domain. ” Until we understand what constitutes a knowledge domain, and just american samoa importantly what does NOT, we can not move ahead with the substitution class lurch that is multi domain .
doctrine does not help us with the definition of a domain. roast Publication 3-0 does not define the condition, though it uses the parole from time to prison term. The closest it gets is in describing the operate Environment ( OE ). Conceptually this is similar, but the notion of an operational environment is not the lapp as a world. By the JP 3-0 definition, an OE can encompass some or all domains depending on where the air force officer needs to operate. This is much closer to the multi domain concept as a whole where the commander will utilize a diverseness of domains to achieve their operational and strategic goals .
Where joint doctrine does discuss domains it much uses the term in ways that provide little clearness as to what resides in the world or where the boundaries lie between domains. For example, in JP 3-0 internet is defined as a “ …global knowledge domain within the information environment ” ( JP 3-0, IV-2 ) while the information environment is described as “ …the aggregate of individuals, organizations, and systems that collect, procedure, circulate, or act on data ” ( JP 3-0, IV-1 ). To foster complicate things, JP 6-0 states that the Electromagnetic spectrum ( EMS ) “ …transcends all physical domains and the information environment and extends beyond define borders and boundaries ” ( JP 6-0, I-6 ). This leaves warfighters with a sphere ( internet ) that exists within a milieu of individuals, organizations, and systems ( information environment ) that is transcended by the electromagnetic spectrum. ultimately the warfighter is asked to fight and win in an function environment ( OE ) that “ …encompasses physical areas of the air, bring, nautical, and space domains : the data environment ( which includes internet ) ; the electromagnetic spectrum ; and other factors ” ( JP 3-0, XIV ) .
JP 5-0 offers the diagram above as exercise of the OE, comprised of the state domains : Land, Air, Maritime, Space, and Cyberspace. This graphic is an try to visually depict the interrelationships of domains, however it distillery does not inform the actual definition of the term .
The US Army ’ s Training and Doctrine Center ( TRADOC ) besides dances around the term with deference to Multi Domain battle by stating : “ all domains are contested – land, air, nautical, space and internet, and across the electromagnetic spectrum. ”
The physical domains of nation, air travel, nautical, and space are by and large well silent conceptually – to the extent that joint doctrine does not feel the need to define them, but the non-physical areas of internet, information environment, and the electromagnetic spectrum are much more unmanageable to conceptualize and bound within a constructive definition. That frequently leads us to situations where operations in these non-physical domains are ill-defined, ineffective, or non-existent, opening critical vulnerabilities to adversaries. As an exercise, electromagnetic interference ( EMI ) is quickly becoming the Achilles heel of military operations. Maneuver within the electromagnetic spectrum is required by most warfighters, from basic radio operators to electronic war assets to satellite sensors. The swerve number of electronic devices on the battlefield, which travel through an ill-defined and coordinate EMS, are leading to routine blue-on-blue EMI fratricide. This could merely be compounded if our opponents actively attempt to deny access .
This discussion is even more challenge when working with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ( NATO ) partners because NATO doctrine uses the term domain to mean something else entirely. The NATO Combined Operations Planning Directive ( COPD ) uses the term world in reference to the Political, Military, Economic, Social, Infrastructure, and Information Systems ( PMESII ), which the JP 5-0 refers to as systems. NATO doctrine looks at the concept of domains as dimensions of an operation environment “ …including its land, air/space, nautical dimensions, adenine well as the PMESII systems of main adversaries… ” ( COPD 4-7 ). consequently, with no doctrinal definition of a domain, we are forced to look to other thinkers for penetration .
William Dries in a War on the Rocks comment used the Miriam Webster definition for world : “ a area distinctively marked by some physical or virtual feature ( sulfur ). ” This is a well basis for the condition, but is more refined by Peter Garretson : “ A world is a space in which forces can maneuver to create effects. ” This definition is closer, but we would argue that it however misses some outstanding points.
other researchers working in the field of information operations, Patrick D. Allen and Dennis P. Gilbert, have suggested a definition for world as “ The sphere of influence in which activities, functions, and operations are undertaken to accomplish missions and exercise control condition over an adversary in regulate to achieve craved effects ” ( Allen and Gilbert, 133 ). The latter part of this definition addresses the relation back of the sphere to the operational requirements. This is an crucial distinction to make because the aim for the universe of the world concept is to provide a framework for focusing carry through in pastime of strategic aims, however this definition does not in full encapsulate what we believe to be the full telescope of a sphere .
We offer the following definition of a domain, first proposed by Jeffrey Reilly, as a “ Critical macro maneuver space whose access or control is critical to the freedom of action and superiority required by the mission. ”
The beginning section of this definition is a “ critical macro maneuver space. ” This phrase begins by implying that a knowledge domain starts with manoeuver. As one of the Joint Functions, movement and steer is…disposition of joint forces to conduct operations by securing positional advantages before or during performance. This affair includes moving or deploying forces into an operational area and maneuvering them within the timeline and to the operational astuteness necessary to achieve objectives. JP 1-0, I-19
The maneuver in a domain is often a unique, defining feature that separates domains from one another. But maneuver entirely is not sufficient for a knowledge domain. The term macro helps simplify the definition by imposing some level of restraint. Without macro, one could argue that any classifiable feature would constitute a new knowledge domain, such as the deviation in maneuver at 1k feet versus 50k feet, or the difference in maneuver in the infrared ( IR ) spectrum versus the radio frequency ( RF ) spectrum. This is the most difficult part of the definition, but one which must be clearly understand in order to be effective. The tension is simplicity versus specificity, and there are compromises with each .
The following segment is “ whose access or control is vital. ” This section implies that we need access or control of a metier in orderliness for it to be a knowledge domain. For example, prior to the launch of Sputnik in 1957, the space world physically existed, but was not operationally accessible. If the ability to maneuver through, entree, or control, a medium is critical to the mission, then it meets the definition of a knowledge domain .
The final segment of the definition is “ freedom of action and superiority required by the mission. ” This segment refers to the mission, and the ability to freely act and gain superiority in a world. This close ties to the definition of a concentrate of gravity in JP 5-0 : “ The source of ability that provides moral or physical persuasiveness, freedom of action, or will to act. ” Superiority may come in the form of dominance, such as tune transcendence, or denial, such as in the electromagnetic spectrum. ultimately, this ties the definition back to the mission, providing an anchor to the true purpose of steer through domains .
In the goal, terms matter. The military is actively pursuing a multi domain concept, with no understand of the condition knowledge domain. This undertake to provide a foundational definition is the begin of that conversation. Until we understand the construction blocks on which we are depending, the multi domain concept can not be explored to the degree it deserves .
*Featured Image courtesy of Lockheed Martin*
LCDR Jon “ Tike ” Farley is an teacher at the Air Command and Staff College who teaches in the Multi-Domain Operational Strategist program. He is an F-18 pilot burner with multiple deployments to the fifth Fleet AOR, supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. e-mail : jonathan.farley.1 @ us.af.mil
Dr. Jared Donnelly is an adjunct Professor at the Air Command and Staff College. He teaches in the Multi Domain Operations Strategists broadcast for the Department of Future Security Studies. e-mail : Jared.donnelly @ us.af.mil
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or put of the Department of the Air Force or the U.S. Government .
