Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013 file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013 book. Happy reading Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013 Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013 at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013 Pocket Guide.
What is Kobo Super Points?

BML was seen as thereby providing a unified framework that would not only remove ambiguities but also rectify the terminological disunities created through the continued dominance of disparate Service cultures and of the numerous communities of interest within those cultures [3]. BML continues as an active project [4]-[5], especially in the modeling and simulation community.

Military police and strategic landpower: short of war and at war.

The promised unambiguous representation of the content of C2 doctrine using BML has, however, not been achieved. Here, we take up once again the idea of formalizing joint doctrine by drawing on more recent developments in the field of ontology. Our target, however, is more modest. The ability of systems, units, or forces to provide data, information, materiel, and services to, and accept the same from, other systems, units, or forces, and to use the data, information, materiel, and services exchanged to enable them to operate effectively together.

IT interoperability includes both the technical exchange of information and the end-to-end operational effectiveness of that exchange of information as required for mission accomplishment. Our hypothesis is that the creation of a Joint Doctrine Ontology JDO can provide a widely applicable benchmark for use by developers of information systems that will support rather than impede unified action by breaking down existing terminological silos of different Services and communities of interest.

In effect, we are constructing JDO as a shadow of JP , incrementally adding definitional enhancements and fur- ther elements of logical regimentation, but in such a way that the ontology, and the dictionary that underlies it, re- main synchronized with each other through future revisions of joint doctrine. In effect, JDO will provide a semantic enhancement of JP , and therefore also of the terminological content of the separate Joint Publications from which the terms and definitions of JP are derived.

Article excerpt

The Dictionary defines the standard U. Gortney, Director of the Joint Staff, these military and associated terms, together with their definitions, constitute approved Department of Defense DOD terminology for general use by all DOD components. In multiple other joint publications, as well as in a series of DoD and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff instructions, it is required that all DoD initiatives, as well as all warfighters and warfighting organizations, should use a common terminology.

We believe that it follows from these instructions that all DoD IT efforts, insofar as they are intended for use in military operations, should be developed in such a way as to be interoperable with joint doctrine. For example, DoDI This is not only because the policy is formulated in a way that falls short of the required specificity, but also because, even where relevant standards exist, they have in almost all cases been created ad hoc , to address specific local needs.

Thus they have not been built in the sort of coordinated, rule-governed way that would be needed to achieve interoperability. The problem of overly weak requirements is illustrated also in the already mentioned DoDI DoDI Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine the degree of interoperability of DISR standards, in part because the needed assessment must be applied simultaneously to the different portions of the DISR, and these often require different sorts of permissions and thus, we assume, are accessible only to different sorts of people.

Achieving interoperability — both terminological and structural [10] — is of course difficult for a large organization like the DoD with a cumbrous history of information system development.

However, in recent years a number of best practices for meeting the demands of inoperability have been established, some of them very simple to implement. Thus a first task would be to establish corresponding simple rules that must be satisfied by IT systems developed by the DoD in the future. We are concerned here only with issues of terminological interoperability, which we propose should be addressed through the creation of a benchmark ontology framework centered around the JDO. The formulation of ontologies using OWL, in particular, would allow computational reasoners to be used in a way that provides automatic checking for consistency of definitions with each new revision of a terminological artifact such as JP The ontology approach can thereby support agile development and coordinated maintenance of information systems in a way that does not sacrifice terminological interoperability [12]—[16].

While DoD thus requires that joint doctrine addresses the need for IT interoperability, it crucially does not require.

  • Joint Doctrine Pubs Interface;
  • Debussys Mélisande: The Lives of Georgette Leblanc, Mary Garden and Maggie Teyte.
  • Army Intelligence and Security Doctrine.
  • Field Manual Fm 3 22 Army Support To Security Cooperation With Change 1 21 June .
  • Substrate Noise Coupling in RFICs (Analog Circuits and Signal Processing).

The forces, units, and systems of all Services must operate together effectively, in part through interoperability. Because a military organization includes its information systems, we believe that building the common language provided by doctrine into the information systems that will be used by warfighters is a vital need. It must be supported also by effective guiding principles and procedures rooted in an understanding of the requirements of unified action.

Those engaged in developing IT systems for military operations should be required to take the terminology and definitions of joint doctrine as their starting point. Increasingly, if this proposal is adopted, doctrine developers will come to be seen as constituting the first rank of information technologists, providing the core terminological content on which all DoD IT content will rest. The idea for such a dictionary is expressed in DoDI Such rules are of obvious importance for our needs here, since an ontological counterpart of JP can be created only if the definitions contained in the latter are in good order from the point of view of logical consistency.

As concerns scope, the Guide specifies that the Dictionary will include terms of general military or associated significance. Technical or highly specialized terms may be included if they can be defined in easily understood language and if their inclusion is of general military or associated significance.

Whose Responsibility is Interoperability? | Small Wars Journal

Clear — Address the meaning of the term only. A definition should not contain doctrinal or procedural information; i. Concise — Be as brief as possible, including only information that makes the term unique. Limit the definition to one sentence whenever possible. The Guide includes also a list of types of errors that are to be avoided when writing definitions. For example, a definition should not be over-restrictive ; it should not be circular ; it should be positive state what is covered by a term rather than what is not covered ; and it should contain no hidden definitions where the definition of one term is embedded inside another.

The rules codified in the Guide conform very well to the best practices identified by terminologists who have studied the authoring of definitions [20]. That violations of these rules have slipped though the coordination process, however, is seen in the fact that errors of each of the mentioned kinds can still be found see Table 1.

Avoiding these and other types of errors would not only make JP more valuable to human users; it would also enable the construction of the formal representations of its content of the sort that are needed for use in computational systems. We are applying these rules in building the JDO, thereby providing a vehicle that can support the usage of joint terminology by computers without sacrificing understandability by humans. These definitions can also be of help in the process of revising joint publications in the future, allowing the content of JP to be used as part of a computational process of quality assurance for the use of terminology in joint publications when successive revisions are made.

An overarching term encompassing more descriptive terms such as area of responsibility and joint operations area for geographic areas in which military operations are conducted. A military operation that is either designated by the Secretary of Defense as a contingency operation or becomes a contingency operation as a matter of law Title 10, United States Code, Section [a][13].

A command consisting of the commander and all those individuals, units, detachments, organizations, or installations that have been placed under the command by the authority establishing the subordinate command. Rule 1: Do not confuse the entity you are defining with the term used to represent that entity.

Almost every JP term is a general term, which is to say, it is a term that refers to something general — a kind or type as in all the cases listed in Table 1 — having multiple specific instances. A small number of JP terms are proper names, which is to say, they refer to exactly one specific instance. Such terms are standardly marked by use of initial capitals, but their treatment in JP is sometimes uncertain. However, there may be a plurality of such systems used by the Army at any given time. Rules 3—5 apply only to general terms, and are satisfied already by the definitions of many such terms in JP Rule 4: Each general term should have at most one single parent term.

Reward Yourself

A vehicle which is designed for the transport of one or more artillery weapons. A device which is designed for projection of munitions beyond the effective range of personal weapons. A geographic area in which military operations are conducted. Contrast the first row of Table 1. Consider for example:. Many of the remaining cases are easily converted to be of this form without any change of meaning. Starting, for example, from the definition:. The employment of cyberspace capabilities where the primary purpose is to achieve objectives in or through cyberspace.

Here two conversion steps are needed.

Field Manual FM 6-99 U.S. Army Report and Message Formats August 2013

The first replaces the term to be defined with a singular noun following rule 2. The second, in accordance with rule 5, adds a representation of the appropriate parent term here, trivially, operation to yield:. An operation that employs cyberspace capabilities and has primary purpose: to achieve objectives in or through cyberspace. Such rules may seem trivial, and the effect of their application may be very slight when measured against the understandability and utility from the point of view of human beings of the definitions to which they give rise.

And second, the changes proposed bring aid not only to the formalization of joint doctrine terminology in the JDO — where adherence to rule 5 allows immediate generation of the backbone taxonomy of the ontology — but also to the quality assurance of joint doctrine definitions themselves, by allowing easier checking of logical consistency. Our strategy for building the JDO follows an approach to coordinated ontology development as a means to advancing interoperability across multiple domains that was first successfully applied in the life sciences in the context of the Open Biomedical Ontologies OBO Foundry initiative [21].

The strategy rests on dividing the domain of biomedicine into a number of sub-domains for genes, proteins, cells, and so forth and creating ontology modules representing the corresponding general types of entities. Each ontology module consists of general terms organized hierarchically through the parent-child relation between types and subtypes. This relation then serves as the starting point for the formulation of the definitions of the terms in the hierarchy in accordance with Rule 5 above.

This strategy is currently being applied in a series of DoD and intelligence community projects, in each case drawing on the Basic Formal Ontology BFO [12], which serves as a common upper level starting point for the creation of definitions of the terms used in the domain ontologies at lower levels. The predominance of general terms in JP reflects the purpose of military doctrine, which is to help warfighters understand the realities of war and their specific situations.

Partner 2019 International fair of armament and defense equipment exhibition Belgrade Serbia Day 3

It achieves these ends largely through the identification and explanation not of specific instances such as a particular aircraft or IT system but rather of important general categories. Doctrine is re-usable because it is applicable to many different instances and to many different sub-kinds of the same general categories that re-appear in ever new situations.

This approach is effective because the basic realities of war are not changed by the fielding of new commanders, equipment, specialties, or tactics. A new IT system may provide a commander with more information in easier-to-understand formats; but the basic role of IT in supporting unified action remains unchanged. Because the developers of doctrine were so successful in identifying the high-level categories of C2, commanders and others continue to use these same categories when understanding how to employ each new IT system to create better operational capabilities.

Nowhere is it stated explicitly in military doctrine that these are the basic categories of the reality of war. Rather, the doctrinal publications are divided by area of warfare and by process C2, intelligence, fire support, logistics, planning, and so forth. One of the virtues of joint doctrine is its consistent use of the same general terms representing sub- categories of thing , attribute , and process across all the joint publications.

It is impossible to understate the value of this achievement, which has not only diminished communications barriers among the warfighters of different specialties but also faci- litated the application of IT in planning, training, and real world operations. What is remarkable is that the authors, managers, and terminologists of joint doctrine achieved this consistency with minimal documented theory and pro- cedures for categorization and for the writing of definitions. In our view, BFO provides the documented theory needed to fill this gap [12].

BFO is architected around the same upper-level categories of thing , attribute , and process used by joint doctrine. The CCO and other domain-ontology modules are 1 defined in BFO terms and then 2 they are themselves extended through the addition of domain-specific sub- ontologies along the lines illustrated in Figure 2.

  • Additional information.
  • Of War and Consequence (The Consortium Chain)?
  • When You and Your Doctor Pray: A Wellspring for Pregnancy, Reproductive Health and Wellness.

The BFO community has refined and tested the needed theory and procedures for generating such sub-ontologies in agile fashion and for preserving their usability and mutual consistency across successive versions. Our strategy for building JDO is incremental. The creation of an ontology for each JP n-m then follows three steps:. Content from CCO is incorporated in each stage as needed. JDO will provide a computationally accessible counterpart of the content of JP designed to support unified action by advancing terminological consistency and interoperability.

The major benefit of JDO should take the form of better C2 through improved communication, self-synchronization, and projection into the future, and in each stage of development of the JDO we will be testing its utility in supporting improvements along all of these dimensions. People can conduct C2 without facilities, equipment and so forth, but the latter cannot perform C2 without people.

Since unified action occurs not only between people and organizations, but also between IT systems and people, by advancing interoperability in the ways described above, a successfully developed JDO can facilitate moving past the low level of unity of action among people, organizations, and IT systems that has been achieved until now. A subsidiary benefit takes the form of providing ways to extend the range of IT-supported uses of the content of doctrine, for example, by allowing the DoD Dictionary to serve as an entry point for web-based searches across multiple repositories of authoritative data; by facilitating greater coordination of training and operations; and by increasing automation of processes such as plan specifi- cation, course of action development, and operations and Blue Force Status assessment, particularly within highly contested environments.

We anticipate that the JDO will allow further enhancements of JP , for example, by providing for each term in the dictionary its own web page that can serve as a repository of usage and of revision history.

Related books and articles

This last benefit is part of our more general strategy to assist developers of the hundreds of IT systems that are developed for U. These benefits include opportunities for logical tracking of dependences among terms and definitions to identify direct and indirect circularities and thereby to help to ensure, when changes in definitions are made in the process of revision, that the effects of these changes cascade appropriately through all dependent definitions.

For example, imagine that revisions need to be made to the definition of a term such as base defense illustrated in Figure 4. The Figure tells us which definitions then need to be checked for continued validity, by showing the terms in JP that are defined using base defense either directly or indirectly by inheritance from a definition lower down the corresponding chain. We believe that terminological interoperability can be achieved only where the terminologies involved are developed as part of, or are defined in terms derived from, a common benchmark ontology framework. Only such a framework can provide a basis for clearly formulated logical relations between terms, and only this will allow the sort of automated checking for consistency that is needed when the terminological content of multiple information systems is aggregated together in larger actual or virtual systems.

Field Manual FM 3-22  Army Support to Security Cooperation  January 2013 Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013
Field Manual FM 3-22  Army Support to Security Cooperation  January 2013 Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013
Field Manual FM 3-22  Army Support to Security Cooperation  January 2013 Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013
Field Manual FM 3-22  Army Support to Security Cooperation  January 2013 Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013
Field Manual FM 3-22  Army Support to Security Cooperation  January 2013 Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013
Field Manual FM 3-22  Army Support to Security Cooperation  January 2013 Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013
Field Manual FM 3-22  Army Support to Security Cooperation  January 2013 Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013

Related Field Manual FM 3-22 Army Support to Security Cooperation January 2013

Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved