Professionals and Doctrine
At the risk of derailing this thread a little, I need to digress somewhat on what it is to be a profession. I don’t think it is a total derailment since I think it also provides some insight regarding the place doctrine ought to be considered to occupy.
Academics tend to establish a list of conditions that a thing must meet before it can be given a certain label or name. The word “profession” falls into this category as well. As I seem to remember from my grad school days, a profession required four basic characteristics:
1.A specialized body of knowledge (BOK);
2.A standard of conduct AKA a code of ethics;
3.A means of assessing entrants’ qualifications for joining the group; and
4.A means of disciplining/excluding those who fail to meet the first and or second criteria above.
Seems to me the military meets all four of these criteria:
1.Doctrine and the assorted customs and traditions of the various services;
2.Each service has a set of value and we all have the UCMJ;
3.Various qualification tests and basic entry training for recruits; pre-commissioning programs (Academies, OCS, ROTC) for officers;
4.Again the UCMJ/MCM as well as various admin discharge procedures and school/promotion selection competitions.
[Lawyers, doctors, even purveyors of commercial affection (hookers) do too, but I won’t exemplify how.]
Once you learn the secret handshake (AKA the specialized BOK) and get initiated into the profession, you can start to play fast and lose with it within your peer group (other members of the profession). Just don’t try to do so until you are granted full member status.
Thanks for the response. Some points for consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
...
a. On the subject of the thread, Do we need to adjust principles of war, if they are of dubious merit, - eg: Do they help make soldiers better at what they do? I submit that Leonhard's method of arguments is extremely useful, or rather I find it so, because I now understand things that I previously did not.
Who determines the merit? If they are to be adjusted, who determines to what and in what way? A committee....
Now that IS scary.
Quote:
b. Military Theory lacks a common set of definitions comparative to other fields of study. I submit that this is extremely problematic. This is not just my opinion. It is a real bone of contention in the UK. I have many examples. Israeli military theory is similarly hamstrung due to the translation issue.
We can agree on the first sentence, we can agree it can pose problems (particularly in coalition operations -- though that is easing. Slowly but soldiers tend to be conservative...). We can disagree that it is a significant problem -- other than for those who wish to study and conduct academic discourse on the topics; the folks actually doing the job make it work.
However, certainly the fact that I contend you're -- as I said semi jokingly earlier -- proposing a solution in search of a problem should be no deterrent to your thesis. I do suspect, however, that getting the rather fractious and arrogant Israeli, UK and US military types to agree on common terminology will be rather like herding cats. Though probably not as much fun...
That's without including any other nations.
Quote:
c. I believe that there should be a sound academic grounding to the profession of arms. It would save us considerable pain and pay off in the long run. I am not suggesting NCOs read Sun-Tzu. Education needs to be appropriate.
I agree but I suspect our definitions of "sound academic" would differ; I'd also suggest that NCOs should read Sun Tzu -- and that even Privates should have some rudimentary knowledge of the departed Chinese gentleman and several other theorists.
I don't really care which theorists as long as there are several. Been my observation that competing dogmas lead people to pick and choose from them to find a path that works for the them at the time..
That, I think, is a good thing
Quote:
PS - Rigor was plain lazy typo. No excuses!
Not a problem, as I said, just a minor, joking item. Your PS emphasizes my points -- in a pinch or a hurry, we all often revert to our cultural background and omit the nuances; and the difference in form does not really detract from understanding at all...
Still, best of luck with your quest.