AFDD 2-1.9, page 12

2 simple attrition with availability of resources, not objectives and the end state, driving operations. Recent conflicts have shown that victory can be achieved more effectively and efficiently through an effects-based approach that extends beyond just attrition. Although there may be occasions when attrition is a desired effect that supports an objective, it is more often the result of planning without regard to the effects. Targeting is a command function and is inherently joint. It requires commander oversight and involvement to ensure proper execution. It is not the exclusive province of one type of specialty or division, such as intelligence or operations, but blends the expertise of many disciplines across the joint force. Targeting occurs at every level of conflict, from strategic to tactical, and it is not solely the domain of airpower, but integrates the full spectrum of joint military capabilities to achieve the commander’s objectives. Targeting is an iterative and cyclic process. The “targeting cycle” is simply the discipline and process of selecting and prioritizing targets and matching actions to them. Targeting is integral to the air and space component’s wartime battle rhythm and should always be thought of as part of a larger effects-based construct of planning, execution, and assessment. Targeting is anticipatory and estimative in nature. In order to discriminately choose certain targets over others, targeteers (a term used throughout this publication to refer to specialists trained in analyzing targets and developing targeting solutions to support the commander’s objectives) and other planners are anticipating and estimating that actions against those targets will be more effective and/or efficient than actions against other targets. Targeting seeks to exploit synergy between intelligence preparation of the battlespace (IPB); target development; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR); strategy and planning; ISR employment; and assessment. An emerging Air Force concept currently labeled "predictive battlespace awareness" (PBA) attempts to capture that synergy. PBA is the situational awareness needed to develop patterns of behavior, constraints and opportunities of geography, topography, cultures, environment, and forces that allow us to misdirect, predict, and pre-empt our adversaries to successfully create effects when and where we choose. This concept requires an extremely high-fidelity model of the threat to provide a heretofore-unknown situational awareness capability to support effective targeting. Saying that targeting is estimative and anticipatory—"predictive," in a very limited sense—does not imply that there is some magical formula, technique, or tool that will allow perfect anticipation of events, consequences, and reactions. The conduct of war and other military operations will always be a matter of art, and while tools and techniques can help make their planning, execution, assessment, and adaptation more effective and efficient, nothing can remove the elements of “friction” and uncertainty— nothing can replace the “art” in the “art of war.” Targeting consists of two broad sets of responsibilities: those tied to a particular conflict and those that are ongoing, performed both in peace and war.