The Persistence of the 'Fog of War'

A Doctrinal and Technical Framework for Decision-Centric ISR

I. Introduction: The Enduring Paradox of Information Warfare

1.1 Re-examining the 'Fog of War' in the Digital Age

The character of modern conflict is increasingly defined by its complexity, speed, and unpredictability.¹ This environment stands in stark contrast to the expectations that emerged with the advent of advanced digital technologies. Historically, military strategy has grappled with the central problem of uncertainty, a phenomenon classically articulated by Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz. As he stated, war is the "realm of uncertainty; three quarters of the factors on which action in war is based are wrapped in a fog of greater or lesser uncertainty".² This uncertainty, or "fog of war," is intertwined with two other fundamental elements of combat: "friction," which includes the myriad minor incidents that make the simple difficult, and "chance," the unpredictable circumstances that consistently occur in war.³ These are not mere side effects but are an intrinsic part of a human-centric endeavor.³

With the dramatic evolutionary growth of battlefield Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, driven by protracted conflicts and the shift to digital technology, a new belief emerged.¹ The argument, often put forth by vendors and advocates of Network-Centric Warfare (NCW), posited that more ISR would lead to less fog, and a sufficient amount would dispel it entirely.¹ This view fueled massive investments in persistent ISR (P-ISR) platforms, such as MALE/HALE UAVs and satellites, with the promise of providing commanders with unprecedented situational awareness and "a clearer picture of the current situation in the fog of war".⁵

1.2 Thesis: Why Persistent ISR Alone Fails to Achieve Total Understanding

Despite these advancements, the notion that the 'fog of war' is a relic of the past is fundamentally flawed. The central paradox of modern information warfare is that an abundance of data does not necessarily lead to a reduction in uncertainty; rather, it often changes the nature of the uncertainties themselves.⁶ The problem has shifted from a lack of information to an inability to process and act on a continuous deluge of data at the speed of conflict.¹ The very technologies designed to provide clarity have introduced new forms of vulnerability, complexity, and systemic friction, ensuring that the "fog" remains an enduring feature of peer-on-peer conflict.

1.3 The Argument for a Decision-Centric ISR Enterprise

To overcome this persistent uncertainty, the military must reframe its approach. The solution is not to simply acquire more sensor platforms or to generate more data. It is a fundamental doctrinal shift. This paper argues that the ISR enterprise must move beyond the linear, platform-centric models of the past and reorient itself to a decision-centric framework. This new approach, exemplified by the Integrated Decision-Driven ISR (IDDI) model, must treat intelligence not as a passive input to planning but as a "generative cognitive engine" that drives operational tempo.¹ To achieve this, the ISR enterprise must specifically target its capabilities against the commander's Decision Support and Target Support requirements, leveraging AI and probabilistic models to transform raw data into actionable insights at tempo.

II. The Enduring 'Fog': Technical and Doctrinal Limitations of P-ISR

2.1 The Mathematical Proof of Clausewitz: Nyquist's Sampling Theorem

The persistence of the 'fog of war' is not merely a philosophical concern; it is rooted in the immutable laws of physics and mathematics. As argued by Dr. Carlo Kopp, the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem provides the "mathematical proof of Clausewitz".¹ The theorem states that to accurately observe a time-varying subject, the "snapshots" must be captured at a rate at least twice as fast as the most rapid change in the observed subject.¹

In an asymmetric conflict, such as a Counter-Insurgency (COIN) campaign, where a technologically advanced force faces an opponent with limited resources, this theorem is often satisfied. The ISR force can continuously surveil the battlespace and achieve a high degree of situational awareness, accelerating its Observation-Orientation-Decision-Action (OODA) loop far faster than the adversary.¹ However, in a peer-on-peer conflict, where both sides possess comparable modern ISR and networking capabilities, the dynamic changes drastically. Both players are cycling through their OODA loops at a similar tempo, effectively sampling each other's activities at a rate that is too slow to capture a complete picture of reality.¹ This results in a persistent loss of information and a fundamental state of uncertainty that cannot be overcome by simply adding more sensors. The problem is not the absence of a technological solution, but the fact that the very nature of a competitive, fast-moving conflict makes total understanding mathematically impossible.

2.2 The Bandwidth Bottleneck: A Foundational Physics Problem

A second and persistent source of uncertainty is the "bandwidth bottleneck" that has plagued military networks for decades.¹ This is a fundamental physics problem that continues to outpace technological solutions. The exponential growth in the quality and quantity of data collected by modern sensors—from high-resolution optical imagers to Synthetic Aperture Radars (SAR)—far exceeds the capacity of existing military networks to transmit and distribute this data.¹

While significant advancements have been made in military datalinks, such as the development of smaller, multi-channel Link 16 radios and Link 16-capable Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites, and new SATCOM systems that leverage commercial technology like Starlink, the core problem remains. Radio propagation physics and spectral congestion prevent network bandwidth from expanding at the same rate as sensor data output.¹ This creates a critical chokepoint between the

Collect and Process/Exploit phases of the intelligence cycle. Raw data, even if it is a perfect snapshot of the battlespace, is rendered useless if it cannot reach the analyst or decision-maker at the speed of relevance. This long-standing issue demonstrates a systemic inability to overcome a foundational physical limitation, ensuring that the "fog" remains a permanent feature of modern warfare.⁹

2.3 ISR Platform Survivability in Contested Environments

The technological overmatch enjoyed in previous conflicts has led to a dangerous complacency in the area of ISR platform survivability.¹ Platforms optimised for COIN operations, such as the MQ-9 Reaper and other legacy UAVs, are "effective, viable and survivable" only in battlespaces where the primary anti-air threat is a shoulder-fired missile or a pintle-mounted anti-aircraft gun.¹ Against a modern nation-state opponent armed with capable, high-mobility Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMs) like the SA-15 Gauntlet or SA-22 Greyhound, these platforms have "virtually zero survivability".¹ This vulnerability extends even to larger, high-value assets like the E-8 JSTARS.¹

The military has increasingly acknowledged this problem, with strategic documents explicitly calling for a shift to a new ISR architecture. This new architecture must consist of survivable, low-observable, penetrating platforms, or be built on a concept of acceptable attrition with "expendable" systems. By targeting the ISR enterprise itself, a peer adversary can create a tactical-to-strategic vulnerability chain, severing the commander's access to vital information and thereby deliberately increasing the 'fog of war' at both the tactical and operational levels.¹¹

2.4 The Evolving Threat: Jamming and Counter-ISR

A final dimension of the enduring 'fog' is the competitive and dynamic nature of the electromagnetic spectrum. A 2011 analysis noted a pervasive complacency in Western planning regarding jam resistance, despite the open export of capable COMJAM and radar jamming equipment by nations like Russia and China.¹ However, this is not a static problem. Since that assessment, significant investments have been made in electronic warfare countermeasures and resilient communications.

The U.S. military has fielded programs like the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) for airborne platforms and has developed new, hardened frequency-hopping waveforms like FH3 and WREN for ground tactical radios. A key advancement is the development of cognitive radio networks, which can dynamically monitor and select optimal wireless channels, thereby preventing interference and increasing communication resilience in congested environments. This ongoing competitive interplay demonstrates that the 'fog of war' is not a fixed phenomenon but rather an effect of the constant, dynamic struggle between a capability and its counter-capability. An adversary's jamming efforts are a deliberate attempt to generate fog, and the military's development of resilient waveforms is an attempt to reduce it. The "fog" is, therefore, a central battleground in itself, not just an incidental effect of combat.

III. A Critical Analysis of the Traditional ISR Model

3.1 The Linear Legacy: Limitations of the TCPED Cycle

The persistence of the 'fog of war' is not only a consequence of technological and adversarial challenges but also a result of an outdated doctrinal framework. The traditional military intelligence cycle, known as TCPED (Task, Collect, Process, Exploit, Disseminate), has long served as the mental model for the ISR enterprise.¹² As a linear pipeline, the TCPED model is built on sequential tasking, hierarchical control, and rigid cycles.¹ It views intelligence as a support function and a passive input to planning, with the flow of information moving in a one-way, lock-step process.¹

This linear nature is a fundamental weakness in modern conflict. The sequential and hierarchical nature of TCPED is simply too slow and fragile to keep pace with the speed and complexity of contemporary warfare.¹ Bottlenecks can occur at any stage, from the initial tasking, which is often based on "known capabilities or expected outcomes" rather than a commander's specific needs, to the processing and dissemination phases.¹⁴ This process is also described as "human-centric," often relying on an individual's experience or a "best guess" for collection techniques.¹⁴ This approach risks a situation where "capability is defining mission, instead of mission dictating capability".¹⁴ The focus is on what the sensor

can do, not what the commander needs to know for a specific decision. This disconnect between sensor output and decision requirement is a root cause of information overload, a phenomenon that only thickens the fog rather than dispelling it.

3.2 The Need for a Systemic Alternative

Modern adversaries operate fluidly across physical, informational, and cognitive dimensions, manipulating tempo, uncertainty, and complexity to their advantage.¹ In this environment, decision superiority is not achieved through more data but through integrated understanding.¹ The military's challenge of information overload and data processing is not unique. It is a problem also faced by commercial enterprises, which have begun to shift from a "data-driven" to a "decision-centric" approach.¹⁵ This external validation suggests that a systemic solution, one that treats decision-making as a measurable process, is the correct pathway forward.¹⁵

The ISR enterprise must therefore be reframed as an "intelligent, adaptive system-of-systems" that directly drives decision-making and operational tempo.¹ The linear pipeline must be replaced by a living, recursive organism that is constantly sensing, learning, and adapting.¹ This new model must position ISR as the "central nervous system" of military operations, enabling both immediate tactical responses and strategic foresight.¹

IV. The Integrated Decision-Driven ISR (IDDI) Framework

To address the limitations of the traditional model and the enduring nature of the 'fog of war,' a new doctrinal framework is necessary. The Integrated Decision-Driven ISR (IDDI) model emerges as this new paradigm. It is a system-of-systems that reframes ISR not as a cycle but as a living organism.¹ IDDI builds on Western military pragmatism and mission command while incorporating the holistic principles of the Chinese school of Complex Systems Engineering, particularly Qian Xuesen’s theory of Open, Complex, Giant Systems (OCGS) and his methodology of “meta-synthesis”.¹

The core difference between the legacy TCPED model and the new IDDI framework can be seen in the table below, which highlights the fundamental paradigm shift from a linear, platform-centric approach to a systemic, decision-centric one.

Table 1: TCPED vs. IDDI Framework Comparison

Feature

Traditional TCPED Model

Integrated Decision-Driven ISR (IDDI)

Structure

A linear, sequential pipeline

A living, recursive system-of-systems

Operational Tempo

Rigid cycles and hierarchical control

Adaptive, real-time convergence

Role of Intelligence

Passive support function, an input to planning

Generative cognition, the foundation of command orchestration

Driver

Platform-centric and capability-driven

Decision-centric and requirements-driven

Action

Follows a linear "kill chain" (Find-Fix-Track...)

Enabled by a distributed, dynamic "Kill-Web"

Assessment

Focused on physical BDA and mission completion

Systemic validation of effects and adversary transformation

IDDI is structured around three interlinked macro-systems: Understand, Decide, and Effect.¹ Each of these is internally complex, adaptive, and recursive, reflecting the principle of

Xitong (systemness) in Chinese systems theory.¹

Table 2: IDDI Core Components and Subsystems

IDDI Macro-System

Core Subsystems

Description

Understand

Sensing, Sense-Making, Orchestration

The cognitive layer. Reframes intelligence as a persistent, adaptive process that drives decision superiority. It is a dynamic, recursive construct.

Decide

Decision Support Mesh (DSM), Human-Machine Integration

The central nervous system. Reconceives decision-making as an emergent, system-wide behavior, not a single commander-centric event.

Effect

Kill-Web, Effects Integration, Assessment Loop

The manifestation of system purpose. Elevates "effect" beyond physical destruction to include cognitive and informational outcomes through a distributed mesh.

4.1 The 'Understand' Macro-System

The 'Understand' macro-system is the cognitive layer of the IDDI model, where intelligence is elevated from passive observation to active, generative cognition.¹ Its three interdependent subsystems—Sensing, Sense-Making, and Orchestration—continuously interact to produce real-time awareness and predictive insight aligned to the commander's needs.¹

• Sensing: This is not broad surveillance but "purposeful perception".¹ Each collection activity is triggered by a specific decision requirement, not a fixed priority list.¹ This dynamic allocation of sensors based on current hypotheses and multi-source inputs (EO/IR, SIGINT, OSINT, and HUMINT) is a direct response to the limitations of the traditional model.¹

• Sense-Making: This is the cognitive engine of the system.¹ The IDDI Fusion Centre acts as a cognitive synthesis hub, where raw data is fused with prior knowledge, models, and operational context to generate insight.¹ This process, mirroring Qian’s "meta-synthesis," fuses expert intuition with empirical evidence to generate understanding from disparate data.¹

• Orchestration: This is the synchronization layer that ensures intelligence is "actionable and aligned".¹ It links collection and fusion directly to decision points in the campaign plan and manages workflows across ISR, targeting, and information operations.¹

4.2 The 'Decide' Macro-System

In the IDDI construct, 'Decide' is not a moment in time but a continuous, systemic activity. It is a radical departure from the slow, hierarchical decision-making of the past. IDDI reconceptualises decision-making as an "emergent behaviour" arising from the continuous assessment of system variables such as threat, tempo, and opportunity.¹

The central enabler of this system is the Decision Support Mesh (DSM), a multi-domain cognitive substrate that highlights when a decision threshold is met.¹ Each node in the mesh contains trigger conditions, priority weighting, and commander’s intent mapping, with AI agents auto-generating suggested courses of action (S-COAs).¹ The commander is no longer the sole decision-maker but the "activator" of decision thresholds, within a system designed to surface decision moments at optimal junctures.¹ This human-machine teaming approach is crucial for navigating complexity, with AI performing prediction, simulation, and pattern-matching while humans provide validation and context.¹

4.3 The 'Effect' Macro-System

In the IDDI framework, the 'Effect' system is the culmination of system-wide orchestration. It is measured not by completion but by "transformation" of the adversary’s behavior, perception, and decision-making processes.¹ This goes beyond traditional kinetic effects to include informational and cognitive outcomes, which are achieved through synchronised operational actions.¹

The model replaces the traditional "kill chain" (Find-Fix-Track-Target-Engage-Assess) with a Kill-Web, a "distributed, semi-autonomous mesh" that dynamically pairs sensors, decision logic, and effectors.¹ This structure reduces system latency and enables mission-type engagements without the need for a full-cycle completion.¹ The Fusion Centre acts as the synchronisation hub, ensuring that ISR insights are immediately actionable and aligned with non-kinetic options.¹

V. The Role of AI and Probabilistic Models as Enablers

To operate at the speed of modern conflict, a systemic doctrine like IDDI requires key technological enablers. AI and probabilistic models are not magical solutions that eliminate the 'fog of war,' but rather critical tools that augment human capabilities and provide a formal methodology for managing uncertainty.

5.1 Augmenting Human Cognition with AI

Within the IDDI framework, AI and machine learning play a crucial role in augmenting human cognition. Their primary function is to perform data-heavy tasks, such as prediction, simulation, and pattern-matching, thereby reducing the cognitive overload on commanders and analysts.¹ AI-enabled correlation is a core process in the Sense-Making subsystem, where AI and expert judgment are fused to convert raw data into meaningful insights.¹

The military is increasingly focused on using AI for multi-sensor and algorithm fusion, which can take disparate sensor data streams and produce a single, comprehensive confidence score for a commander.¹⁷ This capability is fundamental to building the Decision Support Mesh and enabling commanders to make faster, more confident decisions. The importance of the human element in this process is explicitly recognised in military education, where there is a growing emphasis on data literacy and competencies like "prompt literacy" to enable effective interaction with AI tools.

5.2 Probabilistic Models and Bayesian Reasoning in Intelligence

The user's argument for using "probabilistic models to aid human understanding" is strongly supported by the research. The military intelligence analyst must cope with uncertainty and the "gaps and noise that are present in the input".¹⁹ Bayesian models provide a formal methodology for addressing this challenge.¹⁹

These models serve as a vehicle for "weighing evidence and updating existing opinion in light of new inputs".¹⁹ They enable analysts to integrate tenuous data with existing intelligence, providing a quantifiable way to manage uncertainty. Historically, managing uncertainty was an intuitive art of a skilled analyst. Now, probabilistic models provide a way to quantify, model, and manage this uncertainty in a way that can be integrated into a machine-enabled system like the DSM.¹ This represents a significant shift in intelligence analysis, bridging the gap between the human element and the technological solution.

Table 3: The Persistent 'Fog': From Conceptual Challenge to Technical Reality

Clausewitzian Concept

Modern Technical/Human Limitation

Documented Persistence

Fog of War

Nyquist's Theorem in peer-on-peer conflict

Cited in 2011 analysis and confirmed by modern military modernization efforts

Friction

Bandwidth Bottleneck between sensors and users

Documented as a problem in early 2000s and persists to the present day

Chance

Tactical-to-Strategic vulnerability of ISR platforms

Identified as a problem in 2011 and now a core requirement for next-generation platforms

5.3 AI-to-AI Orchestration: The Future of Tempo Advantage

The ultimate goal of this framework is to enable AI-to-AI orchestration, where autonomous agents within the Fusion Centres manage resources, recommend tasking shifts, and predict information gaps.¹ The IDDI model provides the doctrinal and technical pathway for this future. Human oversight will remain essential, but orchestration will become increasingly machine-augmented, improving speed and reducing cognitive burden. This leads to an adaptive tempo that allows the force to operate inside the adversary's decision loop, not merely track it.¹

VI. Recommendations and Implementation Pathways

6.1 Doctrinal and Organizational Change

The transition to a decision-centric ISR enterprise requires more than a technology upgrade; it demands a transformation in mindset, structure, and practice. Military doctrine must be amended to formally adopt the IDDI model, and new organizational constructs, such as the Fusion Centre, must be created at all echelons.¹ This aligns with modern efforts like Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2), which also aims to integrate sensors and systems across domains to create a clearer picture in the 'fog of war'.⁵ However, IDDI provides a more nuanced approach, focusing on enabling commanders by surfacing decision moments at "optimal junctures," rather than simply linking everything to everything else.¹

6.2 The Human Element: Training and Professional Military Education (PME)

The "fog of war" is fundamentally a human problem, and no amount of technology can solve it if the human element is not properly trained and prepared.³ A critical investment must be made in professional military education (PME) to build decision-centric, system-aware warfighters. This includes a shift away from a focus on tactics and toward a deeper understanding of operational art and strategy.²¹ Training must incorporate a comprehensive framework that includes conceptual mastery, fusion skills, and systemic assessment, using exercises that replicate the cognitive and information complexity of modern conflict.

6.3 The Technical Foundations

Implementing IDDI requires a robust, purpose-built technical infrastructure. This includes a Decision Support Mesh (DSM) that can ingest data, commander's intent, and operational constraints.¹ The underlying data ecosystem must be platform-agnostic, federated by design, and resilient enough to operate in contested or denied environments. Key technologies include AI-augmented fusion engines, edge-processing nodes for continuity in EMCON, and resilient communications that leverage both military and commercial systems.

6.4 The Ethics of Adaptive Intelligence

As the ISR enterprise becomes more autonomous, with AI generating tasks and recommendations, ethical boundaries must evolve alongside it.¹ Legal and ethical considerations must be embedded as a "system variable" and encoded into AI models, data logic, and command frameworks.¹ The military must address questions of accountability when AI-generated tasks lead to kinetic action, ensuring that transparency and legitimacy are maintained even at the speed of conflict.¹

VII. Conclusion: A New Doctrine for an Old Problem

The 'fog of war' is an enduring feature of human conflict, rooted in both the immutable laws of physics and the fundamental limitations of the human condition. The promise that persistent ISR and technological solutions could eliminate this uncertainty was a powerful but ultimately flawed proposition. While modern P-ISR has transformed military intelligence, it has not, and cannot, eliminate the 'fog.' Instead, it has shifted the problem from one of information scarcity to one of information overload and the systemic vulnerability of the ISR enterprise itself.

The solution, therefore, is not to pursue total understanding, but to manage and operate effectively within the persistent realm of uncertainty. The Integrated Decision-Driven ISR (IDDI) framework offers a viable and comprehensive doctrinal pathway to achieve this. By reframing ISR as a systemic, decision-centric organism that fuses understanding, decision, and effect in a recursive, adaptive loop, IDDI provides a superior model for modern warfare. The battle is not for a complete, frictionless picture of the battlespace but for a decisive systemic advantage in tempo and decision quality. Nations that master this new form of systemic intelligence will not only fight better but will also be able to shape the strategic landscape before a conflict even begins.

Works cited

1. IDDI and System engineering.docx

2. Fog of war - Oxford Reference, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095826962

3. Human Fog, Human Friction, Human Chance - The Strategy Bridge, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2015/11/22/human-fog-human-friction-human-chance

4. Clausewitz's Friction in War and the United States' Invasion of Iraq - Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://jmss.org/article/download/73037/56043/231396

5. Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office > Initiatives > CJADC2, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://www.ai.mil/Initiatives/CJADC2/

6. Network Centric Warfare - DoDCCRP.org, accessed on September 2, 2025, http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_NCW.pdf

7. Aerospace and Defense Mobilise Insatiable Bandwidth Applications - Analog Devices, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://www.analog.com/en/resources/technical-articles/aerospace-and-defense-mobilize-insatiable-bandwidth-applications.html

8. Why Use Oversampling when Undersampling Can Do the Job? (Rev. A) - Texas Instruments, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://www.ti.com/lit/an/slaa594a/slaa594a.pdf

9. Future Army Bandwidth Needs and Capabilities - RAND, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2004/RAND_MG156.pdf

10. The Army's Bandwidth Bottleneck - DTIC, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1001720.pdf

11. Surviving the Kill Web: Adapting Army Sustainment to the Precision Strike and Unmanned Threat Era | Article, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/286564/surviving_the_kill_web_adapting_army_sustainment_to_the_precision_strike_and_unmanned_threat_era

12. The Army's Gap in Operational-Level Intelligence for Space as Part of Multi-Domain Operations - Army University Press, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/January-February-2020/Drew-Space-Intelligence/

13. ISR Systems – Past, Present, and Future, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://rockwellcollinsthoughtleadership.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/isr-systems-past-present-and-future.pdf

14. UTILIZING TCPED IN CIVIL AND PUBLIC UAS AIR OPERATIONS - Connect NCDOT, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/Aviation%20Events/Nags_Head_Workshop_PM_Slides.pdf

15. Decision Intelligence: The New Era of Data-Driven Decision-Making - Lingaro Group, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://lingarogroup.com/blog/decision-intelligence-the-new-era-of-data-driven-decision-making

16. What is Decision Intelligence? - Aera Technology, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://www.aeratechnology.com/what-is-decision-intelligence

17. Interoperability in Defence: How Unified Data Sharing Strengthens Military Intelligence, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://innefu.com/interoperability-in-defence-how-unified-data-sharing-strengthens-military-intelligence/

18. AI-Enabled Fusion for Conflicting Sensor Data - Booz Allen, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://www.boozallen.com/markets/defense/indo-pacific/ai-enabled-fusion-for-conflicting-sensor-data.html

19. The Role of Plausible Reasoning Within Military Intelligence: An Application of Bayes Theorem as a Model for Problem Solving - DTIC, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD0656597.pdf

20. Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control Strategy - Defense.gov, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.pdf

21. Network-Centric Is Not Decisive | Proceedings - U.S. Naval Institute, accessed on September 2, 2025, https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2003/january/network-centric-not-decisive