text: Appendix C
  Integration with Unified Action Partners
  Army forces conduct operations as part of a joint force and routinely work with unified
  action partners as part of unified action. As such, Army commanders must work with
  unified action partners throughout the operations process. This appendix discusses how
  commanders and staffs at the joint level integrate cyberspace operations and
  electromagnetic warfare with various unified action partners.
  JOINT OPERATIONS CONSIDERATIONS
  C-1. Army operations that involve the use of cyberspace and the Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) can have
  joint implications. Each Service component has cyberspace operations, EMS requirements, and EW
  capabilities that contribute to an integrated whole, synchronized at the JTF headquarters. The CEMA section
  ensures that cyberspace operations and EW align with joint IO, spectrum management operations (SMO),
  and doctrine.
  C-2. An Army corps assigned as a JTF headquarters combines its CEMA section, IO officer, and spectrum
  management chief to establish a JEMSOC. Each Service component subordinate to the JTF headquarters
  establishes an EMSO cell to fuse with the JEMSOC. A corps or division assigned as a joint force headquarters
  is also required to establish an EMSO cell by fusing its CEMA section, IO officer, and spectrum management
  chief.
  C-3. The theater campaign plan guides the planning of cyberspace and EW capabilities. The Army
  contributes an integrated cyberspace and EW plan to support joint operations.
  Note. For more information on joint IO, see JP 3-13. For more information on joint spectrum
  management operations, see JP 3-85.
  INTERAGENCY AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
  C-4. Army commanders must consider the unique capabilities, structures, and priorities of interagency and
  intergovernmental partners before conducting cyberspace operations and EW. Successful operations that
  involve unified action partners require a shared understanding and common objective for the operation.
  C-5. Interagency and intergovernmental partners often have command relationships, lines of authority, and
  planning processes that vary significantly from the Army. Understanding these authorities and processes
  generally require liaison elements to be in place before operations, as it will likely be too late and ineffective
  to establish these elements after the fact. Partners often manage tasks through committees, steering groups,
  and interagency working groups organized along functional lines. The commander is responsible for
  developing interagency and intergovernmental coordination requirements and establishing a liaison element.
  The liaison element is similar to that required for multinational operations.
  C-6. Interagency and intergovernmental partners sometimes have policies that differ or are more restrictive
  than the Army’s policies. These differences manifest in legal authorities, roles, responsibilities, procedures,
  and decision-making processes. Commanders ensure interagency and intergovernmental planners understand
  military capabilities, requirements, operational limitations, liaisons, and legal considerations. Staff
  integrating these partners into operations must understand the nature of these relationships and types of
  support that partners can provide. Commanders will likely need to achieve consensus in the absence of a
  formal command structure to accomplish mission objectives with these organizations.