Since 1989, the US Army has taken part in many operations that are something other than war. Peacekeeping or Stability and Support Operations (SASO) have abounded for U.S. Army forces. In each operation, tactical commanders used U.S. Army doctrine to include the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) to provide a framework to forces available to achieve the desired endstate. Doctrine and the MDMP require that commanders determine decisive points to be leveraged by the use of force to degrade the enemy's center of gravity. The decisive points as used in tactical doctrine are rich in conventional battlefield overtones. The problem set or operational design varies considerably between an operation on a conventional battlefield and that of Stability and Support Operations. This monograph analyzes U.S. Army doctrine in relation to the decisive point to determine whether the doctrinal decisive point continues to support the tactical commander involved in SASO. Beginning with an introduction to the theoretical problem, this monograph presents the decisive point and its relationship to operational design. The ingredients of operational design are decisive points, centers of gravity, and culmination. Each ingredient relates to one another in the context of operational design. This paper analyzes decisive points by reviewing the genesis of decisive points from theory, developed by such as authors as Clausewitz, Jomini, and Schneider. The current doctrinal references to decisive point are compiled, compared to their theoretical beginnings and examined in terms of clarity towards supporting tactical commanders in non-conventional settings such as SASO. With the theoretical backdrop of decisive points available, this monograph examined the actual historical information about decisive points identified by commanders during Stability and Support Operations in Bosnia. Information about decisive points and operational methods analyzed in relation to time and operational design. Fi
