Military Framing: A Case Study

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey opened the 2015 National Military Strategy with the line “complexity and rapid change characterize today’s strategic environment.” Robert Axelrod and Michael Cohen offer that complexity and rapid change describe a system that “consists of parts which interact in ways that heavily influence the probabilities of later events.” Further, human involvement in the strategic environment signifies that the “agents or populations” within the system will seek to change and these interactions and changes are extremely difficult if not impossible to predict. The integrated planning process combines detailed and conceptual planning to enable planning in a complex environment. The Army Design

Doctrine states “framing is about building conceptual models of reality.” They provide context to aid planners and commanders in understanding a complex environment. Further, they help staffs interpret new information. Dietrich Dörner described framing as modeling. “An exact and specific reality model implies knowledge about the possible interrelations within a particular system. It tells us what is important at the moment and what may be important in the future. The frame produced by the staff and commander is a depiction of how they understand an activity within ADM and because it implies a knowledge of future actions, it can aid staffs in conducting the detailed planning in MDMP that generates action. While each of these framing activities occurs simultaneously, there is a logical flow where one takes primacy over the others. Planners first seek to gain an understanding of the current environment, how it relates to a desired end state, and finally, a potential solution to reach that end

Therefore, it is the most important frame because an accurate understanding of the current state and a desired end state allows planners to identify problems and solutions. The operational environment is the area in which the operation will occur and all the factors, organizations, information, or areas that could influence it. Complexity implies that this could be infinitely large. Framing scopes the operational environment to its relevant factors to allow for further conceptual and detailed planning. The relevant factors of the current state also serve to describe the desired end state. Planners and commanders can glean relevant information from higher headquarters guidance or their own collective knowledge and experience developed through brainstorming to determine relevant factors. The 1916 Punitive Expedition provides an example of a commander’s operational frame influenced by a higher headquarters. The guidance General John Pershing received from Washington was that his force was to break up Villa’s band and “would be withdrawn to American territory as soon as the de facto [Mexican] government in Mexico is able to relieve them of this work” and that the soldiers and citizens of Mexico “are treated with every consideration.” This implied that Pershing could view the Mexican forces in Chihuahua as partners in the operation. Therefore, Pershing’s operational frame at the