Operating Status

The final version of the Army Operating Concept, published Aug. 19, is a bit more vague than previous drafts when it comes to characterizing modularity. “Wartime experience has been contrary to the implicit assumptions that underpinned the modular Army's design,” read a June 15 draft of the AOC, first reported by Inside the Army. The sentence is nowhere to be found in the final document, however. The assessment led to a June 21 ITA front-page review titled “Army Finds Some Tenets of Modularity Don't Pass Muster During War.”

Here is the old, draft passage in question:

Wartime experience has been contrary to the implicit assumptions that underpinned the modular Army’s design. For example, the assumption that advanced surveillance systems could maintain situational awareness adequate to secure empty spaces between units operating in non-contiguous areas of operations has proven false. In addition, the assumption that headquarters could assign, attach, and detach units with little or no degradation in the cohesion and combat effectiveness of those units or their higher headquarters has also been proven false. Accordingly, future Army organizations place significantly greater emphasis on the value of organically assigned and habitually associated Army forces to ensure the level of trust, cohesion, confidence, and common understanding required for successfully operating decentralized.

And here is the final version:

Future Army organizations place increased emphasis on the value of organically assigned and habitually associated forces to achieve the level of trust, cohesion and common understanding required to operate decentralized consistent with mission command. By reducing the continuous assignment, attachment and detachment of units and promoting predictable command relationships at all echelons, particularly in the case of activated reserve component units, Army forces prevent unnecessary degradation of the cohesion and combat effectiveness of their units.