SFA as part of a campaign design: supporting operational requirements (part 1)

[marct]

Hi JMM,

The bottom line, with relevance to this thread, is that, where law and politics for each side are based on entirely different constructs, their operational plans will also differ. CvC, methinks. In short, each side will be fighting a different war within the same armed conflict.

A full-spectrum planner would, in an ideal world, say: OK, here is our plan (version 1) based on our legal and political constructs and taking into account our operational capabilities. But, here is their likely plan based on their legal and political constructs and taking into account their operational capabilities. So, to meet their challenge, we have to adapt our plan (version 2; etc., what will they then do ?). Final question (version Nx) - Can we do that and still achieve our legal and political end goals ?

I knew I could count on you for this ! Let me also note that there is one other legal fly in the ointment - the Iroquois Confederacy - which had been recognized as a sovereign state by the British via the Covenant Chain series of treaties (Hey, as a descendant of William Johnson, what else would you expect me to add ).

In all seriousness, however, there are two crucial points here. First, the one made by JMM that one can have equally valid and conflicting legal constructs (with operational implications) in a conflict. Second, and this wasn't mentioned per se, that the terms being used - FID, SFA, UW, etc. - actually rely on those legal constructs.