Intelligence shapes a commander’s understanding of threat and adversary intent by identifying and defining relevant objectives.

Why Intelligence Isn’t Just News, It’s the Compass

If you’ve ever watched a moment from a high-stakes briefing room, you know the drill: screens glow, maps shimmer, and the room hums with a single question every commander wrestles with—what exactly is the threat, and what does the adversary intend? Intelligence isn’t a wall of numbers. It’s the compass that helps the commander find direction in chaos. When we talk about how intelligence supports understanding threat and adversary intentions, there’s a simple, powerful thread to follow: identify, define, and nominate relevant objectives.

Let me explain why this trio matters. Threats aren’t just sharp teeth; they’re a shifting blend of capabilities, timing, decision cycles, and potential deceptions. If you only collect data without turning it into clear goals, you end up with a shelf full of interesting facts and no map to action. On the other hand, when intelligence is tied to concrete objectives, the commander can see what needs to be thwarted, what can be preserved, and where to place resources for the greatest effect. It’s less about having every answer and more about shaping the right questions—fast, precise, and connected to the mission’s core aims.

Intelligence in the JOPES framework isn’t a sideline function. It threads through planning, decision-making, and execution. In the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System, the intelligence team (think J2 in many organizations) collects data from a variety of sources—human intelligence, signals, imagery, open-source information, and regional expertise. They analyze what the adversary can do, what they might do next, and why they would choose a particular course of action. The key is not just knowing a capability, but understanding its relevance to the commander’s objectives. That relevance is what translates raw data into usable guidance for planners and operators.

Identify: spotting the essential pieces of the puzzle

The first step is to identify what matters. This means more than listing the adversary’s weapons or troop numbers. It’s about spotting the critical elements that could influence the course of operations:

• Adversary capabilities and vulnerabilities: What can they do? Where are their strengths weak? Where could our actions force a change in their planning cycle?

• Intent and decision rhythms: Are they signaling aggressiveness, deterrence, or escalation? How quickly do they adapt when faced with pressure?

• Operational context: What external pressures—political, economic, weather, or coalition dynamics—shape their choices?

• Friendly constraints: What resources, timelines, and rules of engagement impact our options?

By identifying these pieces, intelligence creates a map of the battlefield in the commander’s mind. It’s not enough to know that a threat exists; the aim is to know what matters given the mission, the theater, and the alliance’s risk tolerance.

Define: turning data into clear, understandable aims

Next comes definition. Intel professionals help translate a web of data into crisp, actionable objectives. This involves asking: What does success look like? How will we recognize it when it happens? And what thresholds will trigger a decision?

Defining objectives in this context means:

• Framing outcomes, not just actions: Instead of “hit X facility,” the objective might be “deny X capability while preserving civilian infrastructure,” with a signal for success that’s measurable but flexible enough to adapt to changing conditions.

• Matching the objective to the commander’s intent: Objectives should reflect the overall aim of the operation and the acceptable level of risk. If the mission prioritizes rapid closure, objectives will emphasize speed and sequencing. If stability is paramount, they will stress control and protection of civilians.

• Clarifying the constraints and risks: What could go wrong if we pursue one objective over another? What are the potential adversary reactions, and how might they affect timelines or coalition coordination?

Defining is where intelligence begins to shape the action plan. It ensures everyone speaks the same language about what good looks like and what signals will tell us we’re on track.

Nominate: selecting the objectives that steer planning

Finally, intelligence helps nominate the most relevant objectives—those that best guide planning and execution. This isn’t a guess; it’s a disciplined process that weighs multiple factors:

• Feasibility: Can we realistically achieve the objective with available forces, timing, and logistics?

• Impact: Does achieving the objective significantly impede the adversary’s operations or reduce risk to our mission and people?

• Synergy: Do the objectives reinforce each other and fit with other lines of operation? Do they align with U.S. and allied policy constraints?

• Adaptability: If the situation shifts (a new threat, a diplomatic development, a coalition change), can the objectives be adjusted without collapsing the plan?

Nomination is where intelligence materializes into a plan. It sets the priority lanes for targeting, fund allocation, tempo, and maneuver. It also primes the command structure to anticipate adversary responses. If intelligence has done its job, the commander isn’t blindsided by a sudden action they didn’t foresee; they’re prepared to anticipate, adapt, and proceed with informed confidence.

From intelligence to action: a practical flow

Let me connect the dots with a simple progression you’ll see in real-world planning rooms:

• Start with the threat narrative: What is the adversary trying to achieve? What’s their posture in the region, and how do we expect them to respond to pressure?

• Gather and synthesize: Pull in data from ISR assets, allies, diplomatic channels, and open sources. Look for patterns rather than one-off indicators.

• Identify the decision points: Which actions by the adversary would require a response? Where do we gain a leverage point?

• Define the objectives: What do we want to prevent, deter, or achieve? Frame them in observable terms and tie them to mission conditions.

• Nominate the plan: Choose objectives that guide sequencing, resource placement, and risk management. Ensure the plan can survive a shifting threat environment.

• Monitor and adapt: As intelligence updates flow in, reassess and adjust objectives, keeping the command and coalition aligned.

A tangible example helps: imagine a regional flashpoint with a hesitant ally, a rising militia faction, and a near-term political deadline. Intelligence might identify that the adversary’s capabilities hinge on a specific supply line and a particular command-and-control node. The objective could be framed to disrupt that node just enough to slow the adversary, while safeguarding civilians and keeping diplomatic channels open. A separate objective might focus on maintaining freedom of navigation in nearby waters. The result is a coherent set of aims that guides air strikes, cyber operations, and patrols in a synchronized way, rather than chaotic, uncoordinated actions.

Common pitfalls—and how to avoid them

Even well-intentioned teams can stumble. Here are a few traps to watch for:

• Focusing on capabilities without intent: It’s easy to fixate on what a foe can do. The real leverage comes from understanding what they intend to do and why.

• Confusing data volume with clarity: More information isn’t automatically better. Quality, relevance, and timely synthesis matter more than sheer quantity.

• Giving too many objectives at once: Too many aims can dilute effort and blur priorities. Narrow to a few decisive objectives that drive the plan.

• Letting assumptions harden: The operating environment evolves. Be ready to revise objectives when intelligence shows a different threat trajectory.

• Underestimating collaboration: Intelligence does not live in a silo. It thrives when J2, operations, logistics, and coalition partners talk in the same language and share a common picture.

Practical takeaways for readers who want to get this right

If you’re studying the JOPES framework or simply want to sharpen your understanding of how intelligence informs planning, here are bite-sized pointers you can keep handy:

• Start with intent, not just indicators. Ask what the adversary wants and what would signal their next move.

• Translate data into actionable aims. Define what success looks like and what would make you pause or change course.

• Use a clear nomination process. Rank objectives by impact, feasibility, and resilience to change.

• Build a living picture. Let intelligence feeds update your understanding of risk and adjust objectives accordingly.

• Ensure cross-functional clarity. Operators, logisticians, and diplomats all need to see the same objective set to stay coordinated.

A few conversational prompts that help in a briefing room

• “If we disrupt this node, what’s the measurable effect on their tempo?”

• “What is the threshold for escalation versus de-escalation?”

• “How does this objective affect civilian safety and regional stability?”

• “What assumptions must hold true for this plan to stay viable over the next 72 hours?”

The heart of the matter

Intelligence in joint operation planning isn’t just about knowing more stuff. It’s about turning the noise into a navigable map. By identifying, defining, and nominating relevant objectives, intelligence helps the commander see the situation clearly, decide with confidence, and act with purpose. It’s a disciplined, iterative process that ties threat understanding directly to mission success.

If you’re exploring JOPES concepts, remember this thread: threat awareness is a living, breathing thing. It shifts with each new report, each change in the regional political landscape, each unexpected action by the adversary. Your objective set should do more than reflect today’s risk—it should anticipate tomorrow’s possibilities and stay flexible enough to adapt without losing focus.

Closing thought: the art of aligning intellect with intent

There’s a line you’ll hear in thoughtful planning rooms: you don’t win by clever data alone; you win by aligning what you know with what you’re trying to achieve. Intelligence gives you the why—the adversary’s aims and vulnerabilities. The process of identifying, defining, and nominating objectives gives you the what and how that turn knowledge into action. That’s the core value of intelligence in JOPES: a clear direction, a disciplined plan, and a path forward that preserves both mission success and human lives.

If you’re curious to go deeper, look for case studies where intelligence teams connected threat analysis to objective-focused planning in real operations. Notice how the best crews don’t just accumulate insights; they orchestrate them into a coherent, nimble plan that can ride the wave of uncertainty and come out ahead. That’s the heart of effective joint planning—and the reason why intelligence isn’t a backstage function but the very compass of the operation.