AFDD 2-1.9, page 73

63 Units in the field perform some of the TA functions, but “ownership” of TA should be at the functional (or Service) component level. Incorporating all the elements listed above into an amalgamated TA effort owned by component commanders will greatly expedite TA and will thus make timely and relevant higher-level, effects-based assessment possible. Within the CAOC, several divisions share responsibility for TA. The ISRD develops PDA, with inputs from the COD and units. They must rapidly evaluate MISREPs, weapon system video, and other available intelligence to recommend immediate restrike to the COD or to commanders. EDA is accomplished by targeteers in the ISRD and CPD. Those same targeteers are critical team members in the MEA process, providing inputs as part of a collective responsibility with operations experts. While some FA may be accomplished at the CAOC level, most is performed by the theater joint intelligence operations center (JIOC) or through reachback or federated support (see Chapter Five), due to demands for expertise, resources, manning, and the battle rhythm. Weather effects are determined by the WST, leveraging reachback support from the operational weather unit for their region. Logistics inputs may come from many sources, including the COMAFFOR’s A-4 (Logistics) and the AMD. Lower-intensity conflict types of MOPs may have to come from interagency federated support or even from sources outside US control. Assessment of non-kinetic action and non-lethal effects may require significant coordination with the SD’s OAT and the CAOC’s IO Flight. Operational Assessment (OA) Operational assessment at the component level is the first truly effects-based echelon of assessment. TA includes evaluation of direct effects and some immediate indirect, second-order effects, but OA is the first level at which complex, indirect effects are evaluated, progress toward objectives is measured, and recommendations for future action extending beyond simple physical re-attack are made. In one sense, TA is “historical” or “confirmatory”—it tells what has happened, as an aid to determining whether friendly forces are “doing things right.” OA is a crucial form of assessment that should be more “anticipatory” or “predictive,” seeking to answer whether friendly forces are “doing the right thing.” The focus of OA is also much broader than TA’s, expanding from simple destruction, attrition, or damage to the entire range of effects options. OA answers mid- to long-term (days and beyond) questions such as: › Are component objectives being achieved? If not, why not? › Does friendly level of effort need to be modified for this phase of the operation? › Does component strategy need to be adjusted? If so, how? › Are there unanticipated operational limitations? › Do objectives need to be modified? If so, how? OA builds upon TA, incorporating other elements as well: