Army releases 'How the Army Fights' operational warfighting guidance

Army.mil

The U.S. Army released How the Army Fights, new operational warfighting guidance providing a common framework to translate tactical success into campaign-level advantage for the Joint Force. Developed by Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Christopher C. LaNeve, the publication builds on multidomain operations doctrine by detailing how land power is employed at the operational level of war.

The framework organizes Army land power across four interdependent operational elements: convergence, strike, close battle, and endurance. These elements connect tactical battlefield actions to overarching campaign outcomes. The guidance directs formations to prioritize readiness for the pacing threat, defend the homeland, and strengthen interoperability with allies and partners while integrating advanced capabilities like uncrewed systems and artificial intelligence alongside enduring human judgment.

Comment

The release of How the Army Fights formalises a structural shift within the United States Army, moving beyond abstract multidomain concepts toward codified operational-level execution at the corps and division echelons. By anchoring the framework to four interdependent elements—convergence, strike, close battle, and endurance—the doctrine attempts to bridge the historical gap between tactical engagements conducted by formations like the 82nd Airborne Division and theater-wide campaign objectives. This institutionalisation reflects an urgent adaptation to contested, high-intensity conflict environments where distributed command nodes face persistent adversary pressure across vast distances.

Simultaneously, the doctrine's explicit dual emphasis on artificial intelligence-enabled tools and uncrewed systems alongside human leadership highlights the friction inherent in modern capability integration. While algorithmic targeting and resilient networks extend operational reach, the underlying command architecture must still account for degraded electronic warfare conditions that routinely disrupt sensor-to-shooter loops. Consequently, operational readiness increasingly depends on decentralised subordinate initiative when automated synchronisation channels fail under contested conditions.

Strategic Question for Discussion

If electronic warfare degradation routinely severs automated synchronisation channels at the division echelon, how does the four-element framework in How the Army Fights maintain operational continuity between strike assets and close battle formations?

The pattern suggests that operational continuity would fracture without rigorous analog redundancy and mission-command habits forged at the tactical edge. When resilient networks fail, subordinate leaders must rely on pre-established unity of effort rather than real-time digital convergence to bridge the gap between maneuver and fires.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here