Joint Operation Plan

At both the strategic and operational levels, all planning must demonstrate this balance by passing litmus tests for feasibility, acceptability, and suitability. Feasibility, the focus of this essay, is defined as, “the joint operation plan review criterion for assessing whether the assigned mission can be accomplished using available resources within the time contemplated by the plan.” Feasibility, as a test of means, is primarily the province of the military. The onus is on the military to apply resources correctly and in time to achieve campaign objectives. Testing ways, referred to as acceptability, and linking ways to means requires a broader and more inclusive civil-military dialogue. Focusing on feasibility therefore creates realistic
The documentation for the integrated planning system has been recently updated and renamed the Adaptive Planning and Execution System (APEX) system. However, JOPES and the associated TPFDDs will remain integral parts of the system for the foreseeable future. Even after the JOPES information system is replaced, the data analyzed will remain the same.
The combination of written plans and JOPES data allows the Joint Planning and Execution Community (JPEC) to assess joint feasibility for contingency plans. The JPEC is defined as:
“Those headquarters commands, and agencies involved in the training, preparation, movement, reception, employment, support, and sustainment of military forces assigned or committed to a theater of operations or objective area. It usually consists of the Joint Staff, Services, Service major commands (including the Service wholesale logistic commands), unified commands (and their certain Service component commands), Joint Task Forces (as applicable), Defense Logistics Agency, and other Defense Agencies (e.g., Defense Intelligence Agency) as may be appropriate to a given
Politicians and military leaders have different perspectives on conflict, particularly in a limited war scenario. Both parties are pragmatic, but for different reasons. Senior military leaders often look at conflict from a longer-term perspective of potential outcomes related to military action, and key in on the risks service members will face to achieve a political objective. When military action is approved, they prefer to use maximum force as rapidly as possible by attacking the estimated enemy center of gravity. Political leaders are generally concerned with maintaining options, minimizing resource allocation, limiting the duration of conflict, and preserving the domestic political agenda; and they are keenly aware of the next election cycle. Neither perspective is exclusively right or wrong. Points of view simply differ and must be taken into account as decisions related to planning and execution are