Joint Publication 5-0, Joint Planning¶
Staff, U. S. J. C. o. (2020). Joint Publication 5-0, Joint Planning: Joint Planning.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Line of Effort
- Codified in US joint doctrine (JP 5-0) and Army doctrine (ADP 5-0), and used in coalition campaign planning (NATO COPD, UK JDP 5-00)
This sourceUS joint doctrine's definition and use of the line of effort as an operational-design element linking tasks and intermediate effects along a logical rail to an end state. Establishes that operational design factors a campaign into a small set of lines of effort, each a sequence of tasks and intermediate effects, precisely so that a non-geographic campaign becomes depictable and auditable.
- Codified in US joint doctrine (JP 5-0) and Army doctrine (ADP 5-0), and used in coalition campaign planning (NATO COPD, UK JDP 5-00)
- Line of Operation
- Doctrine pairs LOO planning with culminating-point analysis: every axis has a spatial-temporal limit, derived from logistics and force consumption, beyond which the advancing force outruns its support and overextends; ignoring that limit is the characteristic LOO failure mode
This sourceUS joint operational design lists lines of operation and culmination among its elements, defining the culminating point as the point in time and space beyond which an operation can no longer maintain momentum; the ranking of overextension as the characteristic failure of the construct is the article's own.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- Doctrine pairs LOO planning with culminating-point analysis: every axis has a spatial-temporal limit, derived from logistics and force consumption, beyond which the advancing force outruns its support and overextends; ignoring that limit is the characteristic LOO failure mode
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:9378a75e1806 · see in the full table