Skip to content

Navigation Menu

About

  • Mission and Vision
  • Leadership
  • History
  • Fort Leonard Wood Historic Tour
  • FLW Command Policies and Memorandums of Instruction
  • Fort Leonard Wood Regulations
  • About the Region Video
  • Explore the FLW Region

My Fort Leonard Wood

Visitors Access
Training Information
Graduation Information
Newcomers Information
eGuidon News
Hunting and Fishing
Fort Leonard Wood MWR
Bruce C. Clarke Library
Sexual Harassment Assault Response Prevention (SHARP)
Military Equal Opportunity
Voter Assistance
Army Community Services
Army Emergency Relief (AER)

Contact

  • Crisis Phone Numbers
  • Phone Directory
  • Office of the Inspector General
  • MWR Calendar
  • Feedback (ICE)
  • Public Affairs Office
  • MSCoE Publications
    • Writer's Guide & Submission Guidelines
    • Protection Professional Bulletin
      • Friendly Force Information Requirements as Protection-Informed Decisions
      • CBRN Company Task Organization for Persistent and Nonpersistent Threat Environments
      • A Layered Approach to Active Protection
      • Targeted and Exposed: Why Command Post Survivability Demands a Paradigm Shift
      • 42nd Infantry Division Protection Cell: Breaking the Reactive Cycle
      • A New Horizon for Maneuver Support Experimentation: The Final MSPIX and a Vision for the Future
      • Commanders: A Deeper Understanding of the Protection Warfighting Function
      • Further Defining Protection Support Planning
      • Can't Measure a Negative: The Protection Warfighting Function and Large-Scale Combat Operations
      • Failure to Consider Protection in Large-Scale Combat Operations: The Siverskyi Donets River Crossing
      • Protection: The Australian Army Combat Engineer Regiment Approach
      • Fight to Protect the Force
      • Protection: The Fabric of the Warfighting Functions
      • Enabling Convergence: How Engineers Protect the Multidomain Battlespace
      • War-Gaming
      • Protection in the Modern Battlespace: A Conceptual Approach for Battalion and Brigade Staffs
      • Joint Protection Efforts
      • Protection in an Armored Division-The Iron Way
      • Maneuver Support Center of Excellence and Fort Leonard Wood Commanding General
      • Maneuver Support and Protection Integration Experiment 2024
      • Protective Fires
      • The Inaugural Protection and Maneuver Support Senior Leader Forum
      • Survivability: The Foundation of Protection
      • Aligning Protection in the Operations Process
      • Book Review: Next War: Reimagining How We Fight
      • 2025 Protection Warfighting Function Professional Media List
      • Impact of the 52d BEB Mounted CBRN R&S Platoon Throughout KRF-13
      • The Application of the U.S. Army RM Process is Broken
      • Prioritizing Protection: Creating Synchronized Success
      • 10 Tips for Improving Your Protection Working Group
      • Protection Integration in an Armored Corps Insights from WGFX 23-04
      • A Diverse Strategy for a Diverse WFF
      • ADP 3-37, Protection: An Update to the WFF
      • Protection Analysis
      • What is Protection in 2040?
      • The EOCOP and its Place in LSCO
      • The Rugged Brigade and DCRF 22: Preparing to Respond to CBRN Disasters
      • Operationalizing Risk Management for Division and Corps
      • Taming the Hydra: Working Toward an Integrated Protection Construct
      • The All-Domain Protection Story
      • The Protection Warfighting Function In Irregular Warfare
      • Multi-Domain Operations: The Latest Evolution of Operational Doctrine
      • EOD and LSCO in Doctrine
      • Where Did the IEDs Go? Thoughts on Strategic and Operational Rear Areas
      • MSSPIX 22
      • Integrating Protection Into Modern-Day Wargaming
      • CBOA 22
      • Modernization of the Protection WFF
      • Protection Archives
    • Protection Proponent
    • Army Chemical Review
    • CBRN Commandants Corner
    • Engineer Professional Bulletin
    • Military Police Professional Bulletin
    • Military Police Commandants Corner
  • U.S. Army Counterintelligence Command

Units / Tenants

  • U.S. Army Engineer School
  • U.S. Army CBRN School
  • U.S. Army Military Police School
  • 102nd Training Division
  • MSCoE Noncommissioned Officer's Academy
  • 43rd AG Reception Battalion
  • 5th Engineer Battalion
  • 58th Transportation Battalion
  • 763D EOD
  • Homeland Defense Civil Support Office
  • Geospatial Enterprise Office
  • General Leonard Wood Army Community Hospital
  • U.S. Air Force
  • Marine Corps Detachment
  • Navy Detachment
  • U.S. Army Prime Power School

Search

Home U.S. Army home page
Army.mil
U.S. Army Fort Leonard Wood
U.S. Army Fort Leonard Wood
U.S. Army Fort Leonard Wood

Home of the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence.


  1. Home
  2. Contact
  3. MSCoE Publications
  4. Protection Professional Bulletin
  5. Aligning Protection in the Operations Process

Aligning Protection in the Operations Process

Aligning Protection in the Operations Process

By Colonel Joan E. Sommers

In this age of great power competition and rapidly evolving multidomain threats, protection should be integrated into all operations. Protection serves as a combat multiplier in rear and forward areas. Commanders who master the protection warfighting function have the critical battlefield advantage.

Warfare is constantly evolving. While offense remains the desirable focus of operations, technological advancements and the growing presence of constant surveillance, autonomous systems, and long-range fires demand that protection be strategically reevaluated. The emerging generation of warfare must be appreciably focused on protecting units and ensuring their resiliency so that they can preserve themselves and withstand enemy attack. As defense is reinforced, tactics necessitate the reevaluation of traditional offensive strategies. It is now a critical time to innovate defense mechanisms, dispersed tactical formations, and multidomain protection methods that can be adapted to the challenges posed by modern technological advancements.

As demonstrated in Ukraine, the modern battlefield is characterized by pervasive surveillance and precise long-range engagements that render the traditional massing of forces both risky and strategically undesirable. Contemporary warfighting demands a paradigm shift in maneuver and protection strategies. Whereas logistics and foraging once shaped Army movements, forces must now disperse, converge for offensive actions, and quickly redisperse to avoid counterfire. Such a maneuver strategy highlights the need to embed robust protection measures to effectively safeguard combat power. This article advocates for the crucial integration of protection measures throughout military operations to secure mission success.

Prioritizing the Principles of Protection

The protection warfighting function is defined as “the related tasks and systems that preserve the force so the commander can apply maximum combat power to accomplish the mission.”[1] Peer adversaries may be able to rapidly detect and destroy Army forces with space-based capabilities, unmanned systems, and massed and precision fires, so units must prioritize protection throughout all operations.[2] Commanders must visualize how protection impacts operations while developing and integrating protection plans; in this sense, protection drives the characteristics of offensive and defensive operations. It can no longer be tucked away in Annex E of the base order. Protection planning is so critical to future fights that it should be prominently addressed in the first paragraph (Friendly Forces) of the order.

Protection may be so pivotal to future battlefield successes that the Army creates a sixth paragraph (Protection) that shapes staff planning and commander decision points.

One possible change to the battle rhythm would involve merging the protection working group into the targeting decision board. Protection working groups are useful for synchronizing protection efforts but may lack the right personnel and timing to effectively impact maneuver decisions. The protection cell and the protection working group are typically undermanned and are relatively low priorities, so outputs are often inadequate for integration into operations and targeting decisions. Protection working groups can also become overly focused on force protection and lag behind the tempo of the battlefield so that outputs may not synchronize with commanders’ decision points. As with operations orders, protection considerations must be prominently addressed in the targeting cycle. Another option might be to develop a multidomain decision board in place of the targeting decision board to synchronize multidomain assets and protection. The multidomain decision board could replace other meetings or be added to the pre-existing battle rhythm. Unfortunately, division/corps battle rhythms already leave little time for commanders to make decisions so white space is already at a premium. Regardless of the battle rhythm meetings, the goal is for the right people to be planning and synchronizing the protection warfighting function before targeting decisions are presented to commanders.

Shaping Operations With Protection

Just as intelligence has historically driven operations, protection must increasingly shape operational planning. The closest the Army has come to applying protection as a combat multiplier is through the suppression of enemy air defenses in air operations—a one-dimensional approach. The limit of the operational reach of a unit is its culmination point; operational reach balances the natural tension between endurance, momentum, and protection.[3] In an increasingly complex era of warfare, protection becomes the most significant contributor to operational reach in combat operations. Beyond traditional hardening and concealment, protection of the force involves safeguarding communications, conducting cyberspace operations, and managing the electromagnetic spectrum. Protection starts at the individual Soldier level and continues all the way through to operational formations. Commanders must adopt a comprehensive view of protection that includes both physical and electronic dimensions to ensure that protective measures are adapted and integrated into offensive and defensive operations. Commanders must understand, visualize, describe, and direct the protection of assets and capabilities alongside massing effects and conducting sustainment operations.

During offensive operations, commanders must employ cyberspace capabilities with electromagnetic radiation; however, these systems emit observable signatures and are susceptible to enemy attack. Protecting Army electromagnetic capabilities may require that Soldiers turn off equipment to limit emissions and reduce the effectiveness of enemy target acquisition systems. Strict requirements for protection slow operational tempo and the targeting process. On the other hand, turning on equipment and radiating strong electromagnetic signatures at multiple locations could deceive the enemy and impede its ability to target the location of the most valuable Army assets. These scenarios offer commanders a protection decision that can be used in conjunction with ongoing maneuver operations. In essence, commanders must balance dispersion with convergence and emission with target acquisition. The key is to balance protection with tempo so the Army can enable maneuver success.

Reconceptualizing Protection in Maneuver

As armament technology has advanced, body armor has progressed from leather, to wood, to metal, to Kevlar®. Yet, no level or numbers of layers of body armor will stop next-generation technologies from penetration. Current and potential future technologies are forcing commanders to understand that protection doesn’t just consist of a Kevlar vest. Future operations dictate the need for protection throughout the duration of operations and depth of the battlespace—not just in the rear area.

Application of the protection warfighting function must be made a higher priority for commanders at echelon. Staffs—not just protection cells—should be prepared to synonymously assess and reassess protection alongside operations and targeting functions during current and future planning. Commanders can secure mission success by reconceptualizing protection measures throughout military operations. Protection must be viewed differently—not only for current threats but also for emerging threats that are yet unknown.Protection Watermark Crest

About the Author

Colonel Sommers is a military intelligence officer assigned as the Chief, Commander’s Initiatives Group, First Army, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois. She holds a master’s degree in strategic intelligence from National Intelligence University.

Endnotes:

  1. Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 3-0, Operations, 31 July 2019. ↩
  2. ADP 3-37, Protection, 10 January 2024. ↩
  3. ADP 3-0. ↩
Download Original PDF Document
Published 2024
Share this page:

Army.mil

Army.mil


Employment

FOIA

Terms of Use

Accessibility/Section 508

Ready Army


Need Help? Try Army A-Z

My Army Benefits

Warriors Wanted Videos

Page Last Modified: 8/7/26, 12:23 PM

Army CID Submit a Tip / Report a Crime Logo

ManeuverSptCtrOfExce_nobackground.fw.png

Fort Leonard Wood

Victory Through Skill


Policies and Regulations

MSCoE MEO and Garrison EEO

SHARP

Provide Feedback

Webmaster

PRIVACY

 

 

Community Resource Guide

https://www.usainscom.army.mil/isalute/iSalute - Report suspicious activity

imcom.army.mil

U.S. ARMY INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAND


"We Are the Army's Home"

FIND A GARRISON

Survivor Outreach Services | Total Army Sponsorship | Safety

Human Resources | Civilian Expeditionary Workforce

U.S. Army Environmental Command | Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy & Environment

Back to Top