Can We Retire A2AD?

Since Dr. Krepinevich and Bob Work coined the phrase back in 2003 or thereabouts, a term of art largely describing an adversary's ability to contest our freedom of maneuver has gained relevance. "Anti-Access/Area Denial" (or A2AD) has become one of those phrases that those in the know love to use, but which upon closer inspection, seem less meaningful.

Here's one way Dr.K and Mr. Work distinguish A2 from AD "If anti-access (A2) strategies aim to prevent US forces entry into a theater of operations, then area-denial (AD) operations aim to prevent their freedom of action in the more narrow confines of the area under an enemy’s direct control." For seven years now I have struggled to understand why the distinction is important, and I continue to come up empty on this one. If the primary distinction is one of where (geographically) the adversary's actions are directed, it seems to me to be insufficient rationale to make the distinction. As an example--an aircraft carrier targeted by an anti-ship ballistic missile is subject to an "anti-access" challenge. An LHD offloading LCAC's on the horizon attacked with G-RAMM is subject to an "area denial"challenge. Do we need two terms for this?

I'd advocate that we settle on one term or the other.

Bryan McGrath