On the Term ... “LandWarNet”

“LandWarNet” is essentially a generating force term and should not be used throughout a doctrinal publication to describe signal support to operations. No one in a theater of operations talks about “LandWarNet” — not the geographic combatant commander, not the theater army commander, not the J-staff, not the G-staff, not joint partners, not coalition partners, and certainly not Soldiers who use the network. The Army fights as an integrated member of the joint force. In a joint context, the term LandWarNet is totally meaningless. In Afghanistan, for example, when Soldiers talk about the network they are referring to the “Afghan Mission Network,” not LandWarNet. So the concept of LandWarNet is really irrelevant to operations within a theater of war or theater of operations where the operational Army is likely to be employed.

Moreover, LandWarNet is arguably not even a network (see note); it is simply the Army’s portion ($$) of the GIG. Neither the Army Capstone Concept nor any published joint or Army doctrine defines LandWarNet as a network. In simplest terms, LandWarNet is nothing more than the Army’s portion of the GIG, i.e., those portions of the GIG the life-cycle management costs of which are paid for with Army dollars. LandWarNet is therefore an acquisition term, not an operational term. It is a concern of the generating force, not the operational Army--and we write doctrine not for the former but for the latter. Therefore, the more and lengthier the tired discussions of LandWarNet, the less effective is any field manual that uses the term.

In nearly all instances, use of the term LandWarNet is also doctrinally inaccurate. Take NETOPS, for example. In a well-intentioned effort to draw a distinction between Army signal operations and those similar operations conducted by our sister Services, doctrine writers—in this current draft of FM 6-02—have invented the terms “GIG NETOPS” and “LandWarNet NETOPS.” Both terms are doctrinally incorrect; for Joint doctrine (JP 6-0) defines NETOPS as the activities performed in order to operate or defend the GIG. When signal soldiers perform NETOPS, they are, by definition, operating and defending the GIG, not “LandWarNet.”

So, use LandWarNet in JCIDS documents, where it makes sense, but not in doctrinal publications, where it doesn't.


Note.  ADP 6-0, within the context of describing networks (as components of a commanders' mission command system) makes a single reference to LandWarNet, calling it a "technical nNetwork."