The criticisms in this essay are based on my experience as a Special Forces Non-Commissioned Officer and Infantry Officer during tours in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. What follows is a critical look at the CONOP process. As a result, we have reduced well thought out orders to a process that goes against the tenets of counter insurgency doctrine, which emphasizes the importance of mission command. And, because approval is the ultimate goal, planning and mission analysis receives minimal attention as a leaders time is spent developing the CONOP product. These requirements are necessary for CONOP approval thus, CONOPs are often written in a way that will secure higher headquarters (HQs) approval, even if the information is not completely accurate. Therefore, commanders have added additional requirements when submitting CONOPs and these requirements differ depending on what level of CONOP submitted. Providing only the concept of the operation paragraph does not provide sufficient information to a conduct a mission. Though it was originally developed to streamline and expedite the orders process, it has done the opposite, forcing leaders to expend time, effort and energy to push the CONOP through the approval process from the lowest to the highest levels time that should be spent on mission planning. The CONOP has replaced the traditional five paragraph OPORD however, unlike the OPORD, the CONOP does not have a standardized format, nor agreed upon content and varies from unit to unit. Welton ChangĪnyone who has deployed has encountered the CONOP, which is the concept of the operation portion of a operations order (OPORD). Thomas Doherty - With contributions from Mr. Failing to Plan is Planning to Fail: When CONOPs Replace OPORDs
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |