From the American Joint Publication 3-0 Joint Campaigns and Operations we are given the following definitions of linear and nonlinear operations:
“In linear operations, each commander directs and sustains combat power toward enemy forces in concert with adjacent units. In linear operations, emphasis is on maintaining the position of friendly forces in relation to other friendly forces.
In nonlinear operations, forces orient on objectives without geographic reference to adjacent forces. Nonlinear operations typically focus on creating specific effects on multiple decisive points.”
Digging around, one can find a nub of nubs in Joint Logistics, Joint Publication 4-0. A lot revolves around the word feasibility.
“Feasibility. Feasibility is the criterion for assessing whether the assigned mission can be accomplished using available resources within the time contemplated. The point at which the CCDR or subordinate JFC judges that sufficient supplies, distribution capabilities, and LOC capacity exist to initiate operations at an acceptable level of risk is assessed as feasible.”
Unremarkable that a mission, an objective or an effort is not feasible if sufficient LOC do not exist — if the means to fight cannot be delivered. Remarkable that the most strategic-minded guy, the logistician, will deem a nonlinear operation not feasible if sufficient lines of supply cannot be established. That’s because there is no such thing as a nonlinear fight if the lines that matter to us are the lines of communication. Readers, the lines of communication are what matter.
That is not to say that the term nonlinear is totally senseless. JP-3 goes into it more than I suggested above. It just seems to boil down on most occasions to having to resupply by air or expect no resupply. Or it only means that no other commander is on the ground next to you. To me it would be a raid of some kind, and a small one at that. I don’t think the term nonlinear contributes as much as it detracts.