Reducing planning time / policy and legal constraint
Deliberate targeting |
Dynamic targeting |
Combat engagement |
Selfdefence |
Prosecution of time-sensitive targets
Pre-emptive action target board required
Joint targeting
Contact situation No target board required ( RCE dependent )
LOAC applies - Offensive ROE permissions
Legend LOAC Law of Armed Conflict ROE Rules of Engagement
Inherent right of self-defence - within bounds of necessity and proportionality
Figure : The engagement continuum , from NATO Standard AJP- 3.9 , Allied Joint Doctrine for Joint Targeting , Edition A Version 1 , April 2016 .
not require application of the Collateral Damage Estimation process ). Due to the remnants of the COIN mindset across the LANDCOM staff , multiple designated targets were determined to be not fit for the targeting process , but for combat engagement instead during the exercise .
Despite the fact that no formal legal distinction exists to describe combat engagement , it is clear that beyond the Fire Support Coordination Line ( FSCL ), the application of fires would be conducted through the execution of targeting activities . By comparison , Close Air Support ( CAS ) and Air Interdiction ( AI ) are both considered as combat engagement , and are also essential to fighting the fight .
In major combat operations , targeting focuses on identifying capabilities or resources the maneuver commander must engage with effects in order for his operation to succeed , then subsequently attacking them with fire support , aviation , and close air support . In addition to this traditional targeting paradigm , targeting can also include a broad range of both enemy forces to be destroyed and those targets to be influenced through other means .
Effective targeting identifies the targeting options , both lethal and nonlethal , to achieve effects that support the commander ’ s objectives . Lethal assets are normally employed against targets during operations with the intent to capture or kill . Nonlethal assets are normally employed against targets that are best engaged and influenced with Psychological Operations ( PSYOPS ), negotiation , or political , economic , and social programs . The targeting process can and should support PSYOPS and civil-military operations , based on the commander ’ s desired end state . In an MJO +, there is usually more lethal than non-lethal targeting activities , and the latter are subject to different reviews . The legal review will generally be much less restrictive for non-lethal targets , provided that the soft targeting activities conducted will not have the potential expected threat on individual ’ s lives .
Regardless , a reflection should be conducted on how to integrate both lethal and non-lethal targeting into the planning process to produce combined effects as well as a result stronger than their individual efforts . The target development and synchronization step is of paramount importance before the conduct of the Targeting Working Group so that all legal and political aspects can be properly taken into account .
Winning the war is not just “ killing bad guys ,” but also having a holistic approach to problem solving . A cognitive thought process should be conducted on the effects that the commander wants to produce on the enemy . There is a whole-of-staff thinking process that has to be conducted in order to produce effects leading to the desired end state . In order to do so , it is also necessary to answer basic questions such as “ What is the enemy ? What are we doing ? What effects do we want to achieve ?” Indeed , the targeting cycle is based on effects ; it should also be based on the following question : “ What is the problem set of the commander and how we can add value to that ?”
LAND POWER13