| Summary: | Current US doctrine and the Multi Domain Operations concept are contradictory. Doctrine warns of near-peer or even peer competitors across all domains in the future. After competition leads to war, the Multi Domain Operations draft concept calls for the joint force to penetrate, dis-integrate, and exploit an enemy's Anti Access/Area Denial system. History shows that when major powers resort to global war, they fight in the peripheries in order to shape their enemy prior to penetrating into the enemy's homeland. The contradictions in current US doctrine are a result of a lack of study and understanding of the peripheries. This monograph examines past decisions to fight away from major theaters, incorporating case studies of Greenland, Iraq and Syria, and Madagascar during the Second World War. The comparative analysis of the cases leads to justifiable and necessary recommendations for amendments to doctrine. The result of this analysis is a reduction of the knowledge and research gap in existing literature and it will allow future planners and doctrine writers to make more informed decisions. This project proves if planners are able, early in a global war, to recognize their own and the enemy's critical requirements, then defend, seize, or deny them in the peripheries, they will save time, effort, and lives.
|
|---|