Contemporary military command relies on a small set of recurring frameworks. The most useful are mission command, command and control, operational art, operational design, and the operations process. Each names a different problem inside the same field [@jointdoctrinehome; @cacmissioncommand2019].
Mission command
The first framework is mission command. The Army’s 2019 doctrine rollout is useful here because it clarifies mission command as the Army’s approach to command and control rather than a catchall term for philosophy, systems, and warfighting function all at once [@cacmissioncommand2019].
Command and control
The second framework is command and control. This framework treats command as the problem of connecting authority, staff work, communications, and execution. JFQ’s argument for resilient and distributed control is useful because it shows how contested conditions force renewed attention to the architecture of control rather than only the speed of orders [@resilientc22014].
Operational art
The third framework is operational art. This framework links tactical action to strategic purpose by asking how campaigns sequence actions across time, space, and sustainment.
Operational design
The fourth framework is operational design. This framework treats command as problem framing before detailed planning. It asks what system is being acted on, what tensions matter, and which conditions have to be produced.
Operations process
The fifth framework is the operations process. This is the cyclical framework of planning, preparing, executing, and assessing. Military Review’s discussion of data centricity is useful here because it shows how current headquarters try to make that cycle faster and more relevant under LSCO conditions [@datacentricity2023].