For example, in the first section, there is no such country as “Columbia”; the correct name is “Colombia”.

Also, contrary to repeated assertions, for example on 1-1, we are not at war. The phrase “war on terror” is just a political slogan, like the “war on poverty” of Lyndon Johnson days (another one with no possible victory). All military personnel take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which explicitly denies the power to declare a war except to the Congress. The idea that we are at war is false and almost unlawful; it should be removed from Army official documents. The violence of terrorism is more like the danger of a 7-11 armed robbery than that of a blitzkrieg or Tet offensive.

There is another serious problem: On p. 1-7, which also includes a grammatical error, one finds a fundamental definition:

“Threat: The sum of the potential strengths, capabilities,
and [something omitted here] of any adversary that can
limit or negate US mission accomplishment or reduce force,
system, or equipment effectiveness.”

This is not the usual definition of a “threat”. Normally,
a threat is considered a statement or other warning of
impending harmful activity. So, normally, a threat doesn’t
depend on the threatened party, but on the threatener.

This Army “threat” would include Canada, which might cut
oil or uranium exports, thus reducing equipment effectiveness.
As anyone knows, the Army strategic plans include possibly
hostile action, and measures against such action, by every
foreign country in existence, including Canada or Mexico.
However, these countries are not by any reasonable metric a
“threat”.

The problem here is that this Army “threat” depends solely on the
Army, not on anything beyond it. If self-confident and high
in morale, very little could be a “threat” to the Army. However,
to an Army frightened and ready to run away, almost anything
would be a “threat”.

The more “threats”, the more scared and ineffective our Army! This
definition really should be changed, I think.