Navigating Joint Planning: Key Questions for Those Facing Challenges Published July 21, 2025 By Professor Gene Kamena, AWC "There is always the danger that doctrine will lose its proper function, as a guide for the wise, and become dogma for the less intelligent or less thoughtful."[1] For senior military officers and civilian personnel enrolled in in-residence war colleges, coursework on the Joint Planning Process (JPP) is ideally positioned as a refresher, aimed at updating participants on recent doctrinal shifts and emerging threat environments. [2] However, demographic realities and variations in professional experience belie this assumption. A substantial portion of the student body arrives with limited—or no—familiarity with JPP. Army and Marine Corps officers often exhibit greater preparedness, largely due to their operational backgrounds and exposure to planning frameworks. In contrast, many personnel from the Air Force, Navy, Space Force, Department of Defense civilian workforce, and other support entities confront JPP as an arcane system marked by procedural rigidity and an overwhelming lexicon of acronyms. [3] Compounding this issue is the uneven distribution of faculty expertise. Few instructors arrive with deep, experiential knowledge of JPP. Most acquire proficiency through intensive self-education concurrent with teaching responsibilities. While competence typically develops after a year of dedicated effort, faculty turnover—driven by retirements and reassignments—undermines continuity and institutional expertise, creating a cyclical erosion of knowledge and experience. A prevalent, but misguided, coping mechanism among both novice instructors and students is rote memorization of planning procedures absent broader conceptual understanding. [4] This approach undercuts the principal value that senior leaders bring to the planning enterprise: strategic insight and informed judgment. A more effective instructional paradigm emphasizes general process literacy, fluency in doctrinal terminology, and—most critically—an acute understanding of strategic objectives and intended outcomes. [5] Doctrine itself, by its nature, can obscure what matters most: the desired end state, internal coherence, and viable theories of success. It is therefore incumbent upon senior leaders to ensure that planning efforts remain focused on these essential elements rather than becoming mired in doctrinal minutiae. Perspective is essential. Stepping back from the technicalities of JPP enables leaders to engage with a series of “next-level” strategic questions, which help maintain clarity and alignment throughout the planning process. Prior to entering formal planning, senior leaders benefit from articulating a conceptual vision—one that anticipates potential challenges and delineates success criteria. Doing so equips them to guide planners effectively, issue precise directives, and resist mission creep. Strategic Framing: Seven Foundational Questions for Senior Leader Planning To guide effective strategic and operational planning, senior leaders must engage with a set of foundational questions that shape not only the process but also the mindset necessary for Joint Planning Process (JPP) success. These questions promote conceptual clarity, align strategic vision with operational design, and provide a framework for framing and navigating complexity. 1. What Do I Want? Begin by articulating a desired future state—one that does not yet exist but must be envisioned by the senior leader. This vision is distinct from both the mission and the problem statement. [6] It should outline tangible outcomes: changes in behavior, allocation of resources, implementation of new authorities, or modifications to existing processes. Importantly, it must be feasible within the political and material constraints of the moment, considering the will of the populace and national leadership. This is where initial consideration of strategic objectives begins to emerge, typically requiring multiple, coordinated efforts to bring the envisioned future to fruition. Relates to JPP: Desired Operational Environment in Operational Design, Strategic Direction, and Military End State. 2. What Is Going On? Understanding the environment—strategic and operational—is essential. This includes not only identifying adversaries and allies but also analyzing neutral actors, available resources, operational friction, and temporal considerations. Crucially, leaders must engage in self-reflection. Are we adaptive? Do we possess the empathy to understand others' motivations? [7] Can we recognize the limitations of our own force, culture, and national context? Relates to JPP: Current Operational Environment analysis. 3. Who or What Is the Enemy? What obstacles stand in the way of the desired future state? This question invites planners to define the adversary—not solely in terms of numbers, equipment, or tactics, but in terms of intent and motivation. This empathetic analysis requires one to conceptualize the environment from the adversary’s perspective. As intelligence often falls short in capturing emotional drivers or strategic intent, deliberate mental modeling becomes critical. A well-crafted problem statement helps distill this complexity into actionable terms. Relates to JPP: Problem Statement in Operational Design, Mission Statement in Mission Analysis, Enemy Courses of Action (COA) in COA Development and Wargaming. 4. What Resources Are Available? Inventorying all available means—material, human, diplomatic, informational, and military—is a foundational planning step. This includes leveraging allies, partners, and even neutral actors whose inaction may prove advantageous. [8] Creativity is paramount: personal relationships, deception, surprise, and audacity can be as decisive as technical capabilities. Planners must also account for time as a critical and often limiting factor in resource employment. Relate to JPP: Forces and Functions in Operational Design; Time considerations in Mission Analysis. 5. Where Do We Begin? Prioritization is both an art and a necessity. Drawing on insights from prior questions, leaders must focus efforts without being overwhelmed by complexity. Not all information is equally valuable. Some seemingly urgent issues may not merit immediate action. Instead, focus on points of vulnerability in the enemy’s strategy—especially motivations and sources of strength. Discerning what matters most enables planners to identify leverage points with strategic consequence. Relates to JPP: Center of Gravity (COG) Analysis; Lines of Effort and Operation; COA Development; Mission Analysis. 6. What Is the Right Sequence of Events? Leaders must mentally simulate how the operation or campaign will unfold—from initiation to completion. This mental wargaming demands judgment, foresight, and imagination. Synchronizing the application of resources to create dilemmas for the adversary—forcing predictable responses—requires understanding both capabilities and intent. Flexibility is built through anticipation and empathy, enabling the design of responsive branches and sequels. Relates to JPP: Lines of Effort and Operations; COA Development and Wargaming; Concept of Operations. 7. Why Will This Work? Operational planners must maintain a clear and coherent theory of victory throughout the planning process. Joint Publication 5-0 offers valuable guidance in this regard, particularly through its articulation of defeat and stabilization mechanisms. [9] Beyond doctrinal frameworks, the ability of senior leaders to construct and communicate a compelling narrative that convincingly answers the question, “Why will this plan succeed?” is essential. A well-reasoned story not only fosters alignment within the planning team but also enhances strategic credibility with stakeholders. Relates to JPP: Concept of Operations, Course of Action Development, Military Endstate The efficacy of the Joint Planning Process (JPP) hinges not on the rote memorization of its doctrinal rituals, but rather on the strategic foresight and seasoned judgment of senior leaders. As explored, the inherent risk lies in doctrine transforming from a judicious guide into an unyielding dogma, often compelling planners into an unhelpful focus on minutiae at the expense of overarching objectives. To avoid operational myopia, senior leaders must proactively engage with "next level" strategic questions that transcend the immediate intricacies of the JPP. These questions—encompassing the articulation of a desired endstate, a comprehensive understanding of the operational environment, a nuanced assessment of the adversary's motivations, an exhaustive inventory of available tools, the prioritization of efforts, the precise sequencing of actions, and a robust theory of victory—collectively provide an indispensable framework. This framework not only facilitates a coherent dialogue with planners and enables the provision of unambiguous guidance, but critically, it also serves as a safeguard against incremental deviation from core strategic and operational objectives. Ultimately, true mastery in joint planning is evidenced not by a superficial command of its mechanistic steps, but by a profound conceptual understanding of the process, a precise command of its lexicon, and, most critically, a deeply ingrained sense of the "bigger picture," encompassing the envisioned objectives and anticipated outcomes. It is this comprehensive perspective that ensures the JPP remains a dynamic and adaptive instrument of national power, rather than a dislocated and mechanistic exercise. Gene Kamena is an Assistant Professor at the Air War College assigned to the Leadership and Warfighting Department. He retired from the Army after a 30-year career in the Infantry. His interests as an author are in the areas of Warfighting, Leadership, and History. [1] C.J. Dick, From Victory to Stalemate: The Western Front, Summer 1944 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2016), p. 307. [2] Joint Publication 3.0 dated 01 December 2020 containing Change 1 dated 1 July 2024. [3] This is a broad generalization and there are exceptions, Air Force Officers who attend SAMS at Leavenworth or the ten-week program at Norfolk. [4] Modus Operandi - a particular way or method of doing something, especially one that is characteristic or well-established. [5] Linkage between strategic objectives and tactical direction. [6] Visioning - the process of imagining how a business will develop in the future and planning in a suitable way, [7] Empathy - the ability to share someone else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in that person's situation. [8] Considering all elements of power is helpful, but military leaders must focus on the “Military” element of power. This is their forte. [9] JP 5.0 dated 1 July 2024, pages IV-42 to IV-45. Defeat mechanisms: destruction, attrition, and exhaustion, Destroy, Disintegrate, Isolate, Disrupt, Degrade, Deny, and Neutralize. Stabilization Mechanisms: Compel, Control, Influence, and Support. JP 5.0 also provides Stabilization Mechanisms: Compel, Control, Influence, Support, and Competition Mechanism.