Army releases ‘How the Army Fights’ operational warfighting guidance

Small Wars Journal

The U.S. Army published its new operational warfighting framework, How the Army Fights, on 7 October 2026 to translate tactical success into campaign-level advantage for joint operations during high-intensity conflict. Developed under Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher C. LaNeve, the unclassified document details land power employment across contested operational theaters against pacing threats.

This guidance builds directly upon existing multidomain operations doctrine by organizing warfighting through four interdependent operational elements: Convergence, Strike, Close Battle, and Endurance. Convergence synchronises lethal and nonlethal effects across domains to secure positions of advantage, while long-range Strike degrades adversary systems. Ground formations engage in Close Battle to defeat enemy units and consolidate terrain. Sustained power projection defines Endurance. The framework integrates uncrewed systems, artificial intelligence, resilient networks, and precision fires while maintaining human leadership. Acting Secretary of the Army Adam Telle emphasized that homeland defence remains the critical base for expanding posture and allied interoperability.

Comment

The operational framework codifies a transition from the counterinsurgency focus of FM 3-24 toward large-scale combat operations framed in FM 3-0 Multidomain Operations. Defining Endurance as a distinct operational element shifts logistical responsibility directly into campaign design rather than treating sustainment as a secondary support function. Integrating uncrewed platforms and automated sensor mesh networks forces corps-level headquarters to compress targeting cycles against long-range fires.

This compression relies on automated sensor-to-shooter data links field-tested at the Joint Readiness Training Center. Corps fires cells utilize algorithms to filter target telemetry before delegating engagement authority to frontline formations. Consequently, division fires cells maintain target priority across contested networks while brigade combat teams execute decentralized strikes.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which element creates more operational friction when executing multi-domain strikes under contested electronic warfare conditions — corps-level targeting bandwidth or the delegation of engagement authority to brigade combat teams?

The available evidence points toward targeting bandwidth as the primary operational friction, as electronic jamming routinely disrupts top-down data feeds before firing solutions reach lower echelons. While brigade combat teams possess the organic authority to engage tactical targets, their fire-support nodes remain reliant on corps-level intelligence feeds for long-range strikes. Exercise data indicates that communications denial isolates tactical fires cells faster than command structures can decentralize target approval.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

Read the original article