Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
PUBLIC EDUCATION
About Public Education
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      PUBLIC EDUCATIONAbout Public Education
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      News ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio Channel
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS
Connect
Search
  • RSIS
  • Publication
  • RSIS Publications
  • CO09123 | The pitfalls of joint warfare: Conjoined or Separated?
  • Annual Reviews
  • Books
  • Bulletins and Newsletters
  • RSIS Commentary Series
  • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
  • Commemorative / Event Reports
  • Future Issues
  • IDSS Papers
  • Interreligious Relations
  • Monographs
  • NTS Insight
  • Policy Reports
  • Working Papers

CO09123 | The pitfalls of joint warfare: Conjoined or Separated?
Bernard Loo Fook Weng

09 December 2009

download pdf

Commentary

Joint operations, currently so in vogue, is a fine enough concept around which military organisations can structure their forces. However, military planners need to remember that the joint operations principle should not be adopted at the expense of single service competencies.

FOR MILITARY organisations, the top tune has, since the 1980s, been the concept of joint warfare. The US government deemed it so important that it passed the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defence Reorganisation Act in 1986, mandating the US military to re-organise along joint principles. The SAF, in its current 3G transformational agenda, places joint warfare capabilities as the central required competency.

History of Joint warfare

The idea of the different services cooperating towards a single strategic end state is not a recent phenomenon. As far back as the Greco-Persian wars of European antiquity, the symbiosis between land and naval power was already evident. The Persian army led by its king Xerxes was eventually defeated at Plataea by a combined army of Greek city-states, but the seeds of this defeat were sown in the Persian defeat at the naval battle of Salamis. This naval defeat cost Xerxes his logistics lines of resupply, and his army was badly decimated by the ensuing Greek winter. Winston Churchill attributed the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany to the battle for the Atlantic: by securing sea lines of communication across the Atlantic, American military power was finally able to be brought to bear in the theatre of operations that really mattered — the European continent.

However, important as joint warfare is to strategic success, this should not mean that the ‘joint’ supersedes the ‘service’. This is especially in the area of military training, which provides all levels of the military organisation with the necessary skill sets upon which successful military planning and operations are based. Competency at joint operations is ultimately dependent on core competencies at the individual services.

‘Joint’ as a State of Mind

First of all, joint warfare is as much a state of mind as it is an actuality. Military commanders, in thinking ‘joint’, seek to maximise the strategic effect that the limited military resources at their disposal can afford. Therefore, rather than be blinded by their individual service loyalties, commanders ought to be sensitised to the possibility that different services might make a signal contribution to the overall effort.

Military operations however must not be joint simply for the sake of it. If a single service can achieve the desired strategic effect, this ought not to be sacrificed for the principle of joint operations, desirable and even necessary as the principle may be. Nor should a commander give prominence based on his service loyalty to a service in a campaign or operation. For any operation, if commanders deem a particular service to assume the central role, it is because these commanders have made a rational assessment that the peculiar conditions of the operation point to that service assuming this dominant position.

Service Competency as Foundation

Secondly, military organisations need to remember that individual service competency is the foundation for successful joint operations. Service competencies precede joint competencies. In the realm of military training, therefore, there ought to be equal emphasis on both joint and individual service levels. Different levels of commander training, however, place different requirements for this ‘joint’ state of mind. The emphasis on service-level and joint-level skill sets ought to come at different times.

If this argument is correct, this then has implications for the way in which military training and education for military commanders is implemented. At the basic levels of commander training and education, the emphasis ought to be placed on service-level skill sets. If any joint-level training is necessary at basic levels, it is to inculcate the state-of-mind, the awareness that one’s service is not the be-all and end-all of one’s military career; that even lower-level commanders ought to be at least sensitised to the possibilities that the other services offer to military operations. It is really at higher levels of training and education where the focus ought to be on acquiring the skill sets necessary for joint operations and warfare.

Continued Primacy of the Land Component

Finally, military planners ought to remember the counsel of the maritime strategist Julian Stafford Corbett about the primacy of the land; it is almost always how military power affects the situation ‘on the ground’ that is vital to the strategic end game. This is not to say that the air and naval services are strategically irrelevant. Nor is it to say that the land force component alone is the necessary and sufficient condition for strategic success at war. Corbett’s point is this: more often than not, commanding the air and naval domains is strategically relevant only because it provides the platform from which land power can be projected against the heartland of the opponent. As military history has shown us, victory on the land is often impossible without dominance in either the air or naval domains.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the experience of World War Two.

It was entirely appropriate that Nimitz assumed central command of American military operations in the central Pacific during World War Two, given the overwhelming prominence of the maritime conditions. But the whole point of the campaigns to retake islands like Guam or Wake or Iwo Jima was to seize platforms from which air power could be brought to bear, decisively as it turned out, against the Japanese homeland. And for these islands to be retaken, land power had to be brought to bear. The iconic image of Iwo Jima is of soldiers under fire hoisting up the Stars and Stripes. And the ultimate iconic image of victory in the Pacific is of the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima. Each service contributed, but in its own unique way. That, ultimately, may be the true value of joint warfare.

About the Author

Bernard Fook Weng Loo is Associate Professor specialising in strategic and war studies at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. 

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Global

Commentary

Joint operations, currently so in vogue, is a fine enough concept around which military organisations can structure their forces. However, military planners need to remember that the joint operations principle should not be adopted at the expense of single service competencies.

FOR MILITARY organisations, the top tune has, since the 1980s, been the concept of joint warfare. The US government deemed it so important that it passed the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defence Reorganisation Act in 1986, mandating the US military to re-organise along joint principles. The SAF, in its current 3G transformational agenda, places joint warfare capabilities as the central required competency.

History of Joint warfare

The idea of the different services cooperating towards a single strategic end state is not a recent phenomenon. As far back as the Greco-Persian wars of European antiquity, the symbiosis between land and naval power was already evident. The Persian army led by its king Xerxes was eventually defeated at Plataea by a combined army of Greek city-states, but the seeds of this defeat were sown in the Persian defeat at the naval battle of Salamis. This naval defeat cost Xerxes his logistics lines of resupply, and his army was badly decimated by the ensuing Greek winter. Winston Churchill attributed the Allied defeat of Nazi Germany to the battle for the Atlantic: by securing sea lines of communication across the Atlantic, American military power was finally able to be brought to bear in the theatre of operations that really mattered — the European continent.

However, important as joint warfare is to strategic success, this should not mean that the ‘joint’ supersedes the ‘service’. This is especially in the area of military training, which provides all levels of the military organisation with the necessary skill sets upon which successful military planning and operations are based. Competency at joint operations is ultimately dependent on core competencies at the individual services.

‘Joint’ as a State of Mind

First of all, joint warfare is as much a state of mind as it is an actuality. Military commanders, in thinking ‘joint’, seek to maximise the strategic effect that the limited military resources at their disposal can afford. Therefore, rather than be blinded by their individual service loyalties, commanders ought to be sensitised to the possibility that different services might make a signal contribution to the overall effort.

Military operations however must not be joint simply for the sake of it. If a single service can achieve the desired strategic effect, this ought not to be sacrificed for the principle of joint operations, desirable and even necessary as the principle may be. Nor should a commander give prominence based on his service loyalty to a service in a campaign or operation. For any operation, if commanders deem a particular service to assume the central role, it is because these commanders have made a rational assessment that the peculiar conditions of the operation point to that service assuming this dominant position.

Service Competency as Foundation

Secondly, military organisations need to remember that individual service competency is the foundation for successful joint operations. Service competencies precede joint competencies. In the realm of military training, therefore, there ought to be equal emphasis on both joint and individual service levels. Different levels of commander training, however, place different requirements for this ‘joint’ state of mind. The emphasis on service-level and joint-level skill sets ought to come at different times.

If this argument is correct, this then has implications for the way in which military training and education for military commanders is implemented. At the basic levels of commander training and education, the emphasis ought to be placed on service-level skill sets. If any joint-level training is necessary at basic levels, it is to inculcate the state-of-mind, the awareness that one’s service is not the be-all and end-all of one’s military career; that even lower-level commanders ought to be at least sensitised to the possibilities that the other services offer to military operations. It is really at higher levels of training and education where the focus ought to be on acquiring the skill sets necessary for joint operations and warfare.

Continued Primacy of the Land Component

Finally, military planners ought to remember the counsel of the maritime strategist Julian Stafford Corbett about the primacy of the land; it is almost always how military power affects the situation ‘on the ground’ that is vital to the strategic end game. This is not to say that the air and naval services are strategically irrelevant. Nor is it to say that the land force component alone is the necessary and sufficient condition for strategic success at war. Corbett’s point is this: more often than not, commanding the air and naval domains is strategically relevant only because it provides the platform from which land power can be projected against the heartland of the opponent. As military history has shown us, victory on the land is often impossible without dominance in either the air or naval domains.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the experience of World War Two.

It was entirely appropriate that Nimitz assumed central command of American military operations in the central Pacific during World War Two, given the overwhelming prominence of the maritime conditions. But the whole point of the campaigns to retake islands like Guam or Wake or Iwo Jima was to seize platforms from which air power could be brought to bear, decisively as it turned out, against the Japanese homeland. And for these islands to be retaken, land power had to be brought to bear. The iconic image of Iwo Jima is of soldiers under fire hoisting up the Stars and Stripes. And the ultimate iconic image of victory in the Pacific is of the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima. Each service contributed, but in its own unique way. That, ultimately, may be the true value of joint warfare.

About the Author

Bernard Fook Weng Loo is Associate Professor specialising in strategic and war studies at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies, a constituent unit of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. 

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series

Popular Links

About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

Connect with Us

rsis.ntu
rsis_ntu
rsisntu
rsisvideocast
school/rsis-ntu
rsis.sg
rsissg
RSIS
RSS
Subscribe to RSIS Publications
Subscribe to RSIS Events

Getting to RSIS

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

Click here for direction to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
    Help us improve

      Rate your experience with this website
      123456
      Not satisfiedVery satisfied
      What did you like?
      0/255 characters
      What can be improved?
      0/255 characters
      Your email
      Please enter a valid email.
      Thank you for your feedback.
      This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
      OK
      Latest Book
      more info